(please provide a subject/headline and remember to sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~ )
→Please do not post RfA spam here. Thank you.←
Archives
RfA tracker:
File:Wikipedia passport.png
How's this one? -- penubag (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting close. It needs to be under the bar, and it needs to be adjusted in shape (perspective) so that it looks like it is laying on the surface the globe stand is resting on. The Transhumanist 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to lay the passport down but if I change the perspective any more, you will not be able to distinguish the letters and the golden wikiglobe on the passport. Would you be okay with this? -- penubag (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind numbering your questions in the future? I was addressing one in one of my !votes (the question certainly helped me evaluate the candidate) but it was hard to address the exact question, due to no numbering. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. The Transhumanist 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few questions about Lists of basic topics. How are they different from lists of topics? How exactly do you use Linky + AWB to help you create, edit them? I know what they are, but how exactly do they help with these lists? Thanks! Voyaging(talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I see the difference now, but could you still answer my other question? Voyaging(talk) 12:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They differ in scope (mostly in potential scope). "Basic" in the title is intended to keep them from becoming comprehensive and unabridged. In addition to this, lists of "topics" are less well defined in format - some are topically arranged, while others are alphabetical. (Basic topics lists have a common format). I've been renaming the alphabetical topics lists to lists of "articles" as I come across them (following the precedent set by the Mathematics WikiProject folks).
- Linky allows you to open many different pages in tabs (subwindows of a Firefox window). While AWB is a page autoloader, Linky is a page preloader (it loads all the pages you want to work on from the start). You just highlight the links you want to load the pages of, and right-click (and then choose Linky from the drop down menu) - this allows you to select pages for editing on the fly. It can handle 99 pages at a time. Once they are loaded, switching between pages is rapid (almost instantaneous - press Ctrl-tab). Closing tabs is also rapid (just press Ctrl-W, and the page disappears, instantly going to the next page). Linky and tabs are very useful for (fast) visual inspection of pages, and for when you want to change the same thing in each page, or edit a particular batch of pages, or when you are looking for pages that need editing. Linky + tabs works better than AWB when you need to do interactive editing on the pages (edit, preview what you've done, edit some more), and for when you need to switch back and forth between pages or windows a lot.
- AWB is an autoloader, which automatically closes a page when you save it and loads the next page in the list. It has extensive search/replace and page skipping filter features. It searches through a list of pages looking for changes you want to make, and skips those that don't need the changes. AWB is awkward for viewing pages - it's fastest when you don't need to see the results, that is, when you can rely on looking at just the source text. It is most powerful for searching and replacing.
- For many tasks, AWB and Linky are interchangeable. But Linky is faster for selecting links from parts of pages, while AWB processes an entire page to make a link list (list of pages to process). So on-the-fly editing of groups is faster to load with Linky - in AWB, you have to cut and paste those links to another page, then specify that page for AWB to scan with its make list feature. AWB is more useful for large groups of pages - numbering in the hundreds or thousands (you can only load 99 at a time with Linky). Both AWB and Linky are useful for creating pages from redlinks.
- Currently, I'm focused on the lists of basic country topics, so I'll explain how I used/use the programs on them. I used AWB to create the 200+ basic country topics lists, from a page of redlinks where each redlink was the name of a country list I wanted to create - now they're all listed on the basic topics WikiProject page, and at the WP:AWC. As AWB opened each page, I inserted a template for substitution ("{{subst:template name}}) and then saved. The template was designed to provide a starting point for all the lists, including all the standard topics I could find. I used it because it could be programmed to automatically insert the country name into each page name (link) displayed on each list - a great many pages for countries follow standard naming formats - like "Politics of country name", "Culture of country name", etc. The country name was also automatically inserted in headings and in the lead. There is no sense in constructing each list from scratch by hand - a lot of it would be repetitive.
- Unfortunately, not all page names are standardized, and therefor not all link names can be standardized. Countries differ in their forms of government, and so "Parliament of country name" does not apply to all countries (some countries have Congresses instead, or Assemblies, etc). Those have to be changed manually. Also, not all the info included are page names. Some of the items need to be filled in with information pertaining to each country (like location, form of government, head of state, etc. Therefore, once created, each list needs to be customized. Also, when an improvement is thought of for the standard design, that improvement has to be made on all the lists. AWB and Linky+Tabs to the rescue...
- Sometimes a heading needs to be changed. I use AWB to change it in all the lists. But to add the location information to the location entry in each country list, I use Linky (because just including a standard location for each country, like "Earth", wouldn't be very useful). :) I also use Linky when I want to work on the same section in each list. For example, the regions section, or the government section. The regions types differ from country to country, as does the structure of their governments, so Linky is much more useful for these sections because there's a lot of interactive editing (switching windows to copy/paste info, checking other articles for info, etc. So when working on locations, I whip out the location for one country, and when I'm done I delete the tab (CTRL-W) and instantly the next country list is displayed for me to process its location.
- Sometimes I come across a standard item that needs to be added to all the lists. For example Energy policy of country name. That's not a search/replace operation, so instead of using AWB, I use Linky for this. Once the pages are all in tabs, I edit each one, pasting the new line in, like this:
- Another use for Linky is in bluelinking. For many items, the countries don't use a standard name, even when they could/should - editors use different page names for the same topic, unless a standard emerges and becomes obvious (but sometimes editors don't check first and just use whatever page title comes to mind). For those, I use a standard name, but it of course comes up redlinked in many country lists. So I load up a bunch of countries in Linky, and then click on the redlink, which creates a new page. In another window, I track down the name of the page containing the relevant information, and then insert a redirect into the new page leading to that information. This causes the link on the country list to turn blue. I backtrack to check the bluelink to see if the redirect works as expected, and if it does, I then {Ctrl-W) and work on the same redlink in the next list, etc. (Creating redirects is better than typing in the various page names, because a set of standard redirects comes in very handy for future uses. Another approach is to standardize the page names themselves by moving them, but whether that is the best approach must be determined on a topic-by-topic basis, and I generally reserve judgment until I'm sure what the standard name should be. There's a lot of trial and error involved, and changing links is a lot faster than renaming pages, so it's better to wait than have to rename a set of pages several times as you come up with a better standard name).
- I hope the above explanation helps.
- By the way, the set of country lists (the set of drafts) isn't ready for others to whip through them with these tools yet - the template which they were created with is under further development, and the lists need to be refreshed with the final template before they start getting customized (otherwise refreshing them will wipe out all customization). Those that have already been moved to article space (to Lists of basic topics) are fine to work on, because refreshing those is not an option (they've already been heavily customized). I use linky a lot on those. The standard format emerging from those will be used on all the rest of the countries.
- Don't worry about the drafts of the basic non-country lists. Those are ready and waiting for you to work on to your heart's content.
- The Transhumanist 18:26, 23
May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the quick and extremely thorough response! It explained everything perfectly, I really appreciate the time you took to answer my question! Voyaging(talk) 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah! I can't believe I forgot again.... it is now sent out monthly (switched from fortnightly). I'll send it out by the end of the day. This is the page for the newsletter, with links to who it goes out to. I use Newsletter bot by Milk's Favorite Cookie to distribute the newsletter. I just take the template (or just take a previous issue), edit it, save it as a new edition in the archive, and submit it to Newsletter bot. --SharkfaceT/C 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow the directions at User:Newsletterbot. They're pretty cut and dry. --SharkfaceT/C 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue 3 • May 23, 2008
|
- Special request
If you are familiar with or like using photoshop or the GIMP, your help is needed to create some special awards for an important upcoming AWC project. Please contact The Transhumanist ''
- New sponsored challenges
New challenges include:
- News
|
- Useful Links
In case you ever get lost:
- Collaboration of the Fortnight
- More Links
|
- Newsletter Bot Talk 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)The above newsletter was delivered by Newsletterbot (talk · contribs). If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here.[reply]
When you sign your posts with four tidles how do you get your name colorful like that?--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You click on "my preferences" at the top of the page. In the middle of the screen that comes up, you'll see "Signature:" with an input box next to it and a check box under that. Checkmark the check box, and add your signature code to the input box. Then the sig code will be replaced by your custom signature.
- I hope that was understandable. Good luck with your signature, and have fun!
- The Transhumanist 01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried doing it but it didnt work. Sorry, Im only 11.
--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In follow up of your request on my talk page, I added the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ecuador#Announcements_and_open_tasks. Thanks again for your work on this matter. GregManninLB (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the newsletter change; I should have sent you a quick memo.If you want the newsletter to be released fortnightly, why don't you release the newsletter? Either you can do it on the off weeks while I do it on the monthly, or you could just do the whole thing. Fortnightly delivery is fine, as long as somebody is available to do it. My real life duties, unfortunately, prevent me from being able to devote the time needed for a fortnightly release. In fact, I think it would be great if you did the next issue (2 weeks from now, assuming we switch back to the fortnightly system), as it would be great for announcing your project.
Good job with WP:CBB. Assuming I find the time (which I most likely won't), I'll advertise for the newsletter.
Again, apologies for the (temporary) change in format. My current life is busy and, sadly, I haven't been able to devote enough time to the project.
Hope your new endeavor is going well --SharkfaceT/C 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Art, The Arts, and Entertainment • Game • Poetry • Sports
- Performing arts • Dance • Film • Music • Opera • Theatre
- Visual arts • Architecture • Crafts • Drawing • Film • Painting • Photography • Sculpture
Are the above lists complete? They should each provide general coverage to their subject and include links to articles essential for acquiring a basic understanding of the subject.
Can you spot any missing topics?
The Transhumanist 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
- I think comics deserves a spot. Just a short article on a few sentences describing the main features that constitute the medium. 惑乱 分からん 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does writing, or literature, come in? --Richardrj talk email 15:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how video games are not an art form. Vranak
- I agree, it has evolved into a unique medium and art form. 惑乱 分からん 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Television? and Radio? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to make the individual lists more complete? Because the more complete the lists become the less basic the items listed. If you are looking for other basic topics lists, an obvious gap is List of basic fashion topics. meltBanana 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah: TV, Radio, film, music, and radio: all art forms. However, shoddier art can become so heavily commercialized that it becomes as much a business venture as anything else. Vranak 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides a united states president, what three americans changed america in the 20th century? (which stand out on top)69.225.49.10 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... It sounds like someone would have to weigh the evidence and make their own judgement call on that ... perhaps even providing some clear and cogent rationale to back it up -- maybe in some reasonable form like an essay or paper? Pastordavid 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that we don't do homework here, and that this a call for opinions, not a reference question. Here's a hint to get you going on this for yourself: think of three important things that happened in the US during the 20th century. Do anybody's names come to mind when thinking of those things? --TotoBaggins 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another hint: Person of the Year. Here's another hint: greatness (depending on how you define it) does not always coincide with recognition ... since (apparently) small actions can have far-reaching consequences; such as the action of giving free homework answers anonymously over the internet to people who later go on to become world leaders because of their shrewd and wholly-subsidized opportunism. dr.ef.tymac 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are three hints: think about the greatest discoveries in science (such as in nuclear physics), in engineering (such as in manufacturing and aeronautics), and in electronic technology (such as in telecommunications). Human rights would be another good place to start. Okay, that's 4 hints. I lied. :-) The Transhumanist 05:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add a definition for preproprotein and examples? thanks208.146.45.110 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has a fairly long article on insulin, but does not do a very good job of explaining the preproinsulin molecule. Most peptide hormones and neuropeptides are derived from preproproteins that use a signal peptide to interact with signal recognition particles and gain entry into the endoplasmic reticulum. After the signal peptide is cleaved from the preproproteins, the prohormone must be further processed to produce a functioning signal molecule that can bind to its receptor. Proopiomelanocortin is derived from preproopiomelanocortin. The articles on oxytocin and cholecystokinin also indicate that they are produced from a larger preproproteins. --JWSchmidt 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proprotein is also currently without an article. The Transhumanist 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added redirects for proprotein and preproprotein to protein precursor. I also described prepropeptides there. The pre- prefix should be elaborated upon at either signal peptide or protein targeting, in my opinion. --David Iberri (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What celestal objects (eg. planets, deep-sky objects, comets, etc) can I see with a 114 mm reflector, and when? I'm not asking you to list all of them, just some good objects to look at during different times of year. The thing it, I can calculate limiting magnitude, and I can calculate surface brightness, but I can't calculate if the two correspond in a way so I can see the object well, or what bagnification I should use. Ok, I will list the magnifications and approximate FOVs here, FOVs in arcmins:
- 36x, 100
- 60x, 50
- 72x, 50
- 90x, 30
- 120x, 25
- 144x, 25
- 180x, 15
- 240x, 12
- 360x, 7
So, which objects should I look for, and at which magnifications? Yes, i know that aperture is more important, but I already set the aperture by buying the telescope, although it can be closed down to 57 mm if required, and I doubt that would be nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this website will help: http://www.astro-tom.com/getting_started/what_to_look_at.htm
Hi. Is it important to avoid scratching or touching the lenses/eyepieces' coating? Is the coating so important that the eyepiece/lens would be effectively useless/very poor quality without it? How does lens paper work, how does it prevent you from touching the lenses while using it to clean them, and about how much do they usually cost? Would washing or wiping lenses with a household tissue damage the coating? In an average eyepiece, approximately what percentage of its value belongs to the plastic components, the rubber components, the glass of the lens, the optical coating, and the metal components? Is the coating's job to allow more light to pass through, to supress false colour, to allow clearer images, etc? When an eyepiece says it has three-, four-, five-, etc element design, does that refer to the glass or the coatings? Are eyepieces perfectly symmetrical in terms of the shape of the glass parts, in all lines of potential symmetry, viewed from above, or do the optical element design cause it to be slightly not symmetrical? Oh, and as an aside, when my telescope is polar-alighned, on my telescope's RA slow-motion controls, when I rotate the knob clockwise, the RA number that it is pointed to goes down, and when I turn it counter-clockwise, the RA number goes up. Which way do I turn it to follow the Earth's rotation? Also, both on the left and right of the 90 mark for decilnation, the numbers go down from 90, go down to 0 on both sides, then go back up to 90 on the other side. I think one of the 90s is north pole, and the other one is south pole. I think i know which one it is, but when I point to an object with a specific declination, in which direction should I turn so that the declination lines up, or should I experiment with both and use the one that makes sense? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See this web page on cleaning telescopes. The Transhumanist 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the latest date that Al Gore could enter the presidential race...
...as a democratic candidate?
...as an independent candidate?
The Transhumanist 02:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply] Technically, he needn't enter at all. Strom Thurmond held a successful write-in campaign. Even thought it wasn't on the scale of a presidential race, Gore could have a shot that way. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- It would depend on the state; each state has separate rules for qualification for ballot access. As stated above, he could also run as a write-in, but even write-ins have to register as candidates by one date or another. Of course, you also have the question as to when is the last feasible date at which he could enter. I think that date has past, considering that Super Duper Tuesday is next week. Al Gore is solidly in the Democratic camp and wouldn't run against Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be the Democratic candidate, he would have to be nominated by the Democratic National Convention. So the latest he could throw his hat in is during the convention - August 25 to 28. FiggyBee (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility seems remote, but... Xn4 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Garlic? FiggyBee (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/* Don't display some stuff on the
user page */
body.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
display: none !important;
}
- What is the syntax for specifying the selector for a particular page, in the various namespaces?
- And more importantly, where is this documented?
- Also, I can't find any documentation on the body.page selector, nor any of the selectors of the set that it belongs to. Please point me to them if you know.
In my monobook.css, the above syntax works for pages in the main namespace, but doesn't work on my user page, for instance. (I swapped out "Main_Page" with "User_The_Transhumanist_(AWB)", but nothing happened. And yes, I cleared the cache). I also tried a colon after "User". Nuthin'. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the page's generated HTML; the class MediaWiki generates for that page is
page-User_The_Transhumanist_AWB . --cesarb 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created the article geographic feature, but I'm not sure I've defined the class entirely correctly. I took some of the material from other Wikipedia articles, and I don't know if they were correct.
For example, are countries and other administrative divisions geographic features? What about imaginary lines like borders, the Equator, etc.
I said they weren't (except for settlements), but I'm not 100% sure.
Wikipedia isn't consistent on geographic features, landforms, etc., and it isn't clear what is or is not a geographic feature. The article landform implies that landforms are not geographic features.
I couldn't find a definitive treatment of what is or is not one, so that leaves a bunch of things up in the air:
What about national parks?
Nature reserves?
What about orchards?
And then there's the sea floor, and its features, like trenches, submerged reefs, etc.
I look forward to your edits and comments.
The Transhumanist 07:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Political boundaries and the like are not geographical features. That's why they are not invariably found on geographic (=physical) maps; they are found on political maps. - Nunh-huh 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the field of GIS, as well as cartography to some degree, a geographic feature is anything spatial you are representing on a map or in a geodatabase. The usual term is just "feature", but it's not uncommon to hear "geographic feature". I would argue that political boundaries and the like are geographic features. The field of geography includes political geography, not just physical geography. Pfly (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It seems bizarre to me to say that political boundaries are not geographical features; maybe this is not as well-defined a concept as you seem to think. And while this is not the place to debate it, I don't see what the point is of having an article about geographical features in the first place. If they're things shown on maps, why shouldn't that article say whatever is to be said about them? --Anonymous, 08:30 UTC, edited 10:27, May 10, 2008.
- Here is a great method of finding out what is a geographical feature and what isn't. Position yourself in a landscape, and point at anything that you know is there. Is it visible? If so, you've located a geographical feature. If it is a resident house, it is a very minor geographical feature, and a man-made one at that. If it is a tall mountain, it can be considered a major geographical feature. If it is a river, it is also a geographical feature, notable if it is big, not notable if not so big. What does the geography feature? It may feature a border station with customs, barracks and wire. The border control station is a feature - the political border is not. The wall of wire is a feature (major if big, minor if not), but is entirely disjoint from what is defined to be the end of a geographically defined administrative region. Hereupon lies the source of confusion with regards to wether or not a border is a geographical feature. Political boundaries are not geographical features. The wall the Israelis built just recently is, however, a geographical feature that signifies a political boundary.
- I don't wish to take to the refdesk what should otherwise be on the article's talkpage, but you aired a question here, and as such it deserves my best answer. Scaller (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that some non-geographic features are often included on geographic maps simply to help us locate the geographic features. State, provincial, and national boundaries and large cites might be included, for example. In the case of a map of California fault lines, it would be useful to know where Los Angeles and San Francisco are located. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Anonymous said about the terms being only loosely defined is right. I know the word "geographic" is often used for physical things only, which would leave political boundaries out. But this usage is not the only one, nor necessary "correct". I just went and picked up a book I have called "Modeling our World: The ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design". Here's a quote from page 25: "Geographic features are located at or near the surface of the earth. They can occur naturally (rivers, vegetation, and peaks), can be constructions (roads, pipelines, and buildings), and can be subdivisions of land (counties, land parcels, and political divisions)." Pfly (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another example is the USGS Geographic Names Information System. Although they mostly use just the word "feature", as in "feature name", "feature class", etc, they do use the term "geographic feature" on their FAQ page: "GNIS public Web site: Directly queries the database for official geographic feature names, their locative attributes, variant names, and other data..." The geographic features in the GNIS database all kinds of non-physical things, like counties, states, etc. Pfly (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The planets, solar systems, star clusters, and galaxies all spin. Does the universe itself spin? Mr Beans Backside (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no evidence that it does and no reason to expect that it would. The systems you mention, from planets to galaxies, are all examples of systems that have coallesced under the force of gravity. Gravitational contraction preserves any initial angular momentum a system may have had at random, and as a result amplifies a system's rate of rotation. However, by contrast, the universe as a whole is not a gravitationally collapsed system, and hence the same dynamics will not apply. Dragons flight (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently there are a lot of bored theorists, cause it isn't that hard to google papers on rotating universe versions of cosmology. This quotes a limit of 2×10−13 radians/year, or one revolution every 30 trillion years. Dragons flight (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hot, thankee. WilyD 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is making my head spin
- Isn't "spinning" defined in relation to surrounding space? But what if there is no surrounding space? How could you tell the Universe is spinning if you have nothing outside the Universe to compare its changing position to? Just curious. :) The Transhumanist 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent question, and not an easy one to answer. I'm not sure if there even is a generally accepted answer. Consider this: You have two masses connected by a string, you set them spinning around their common centre of gravity and the string will go taut. What happens if you do it in an otherwise completely empty universe? They're not spinning with respect to anything else, since there isn't anything else, so does the string go taut? --Tango (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the string would go taut, the physics to calculate this does not involve any other entity. spin is not relative. It is a bit too abstract for me to talk about an entirely empty universe, instead consider a very empty space, very large space, you know the string would be taut in this case. If you want some more interesting physics, Black holes preserve angular momentum as one of the few properties that exists beyond the event horizon. GameKeeper (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The short answer is "no" - you can tell if something's spinning due to the appearence of interial forces, namely the "centrifugal force". I don't believe this has ever been measured for the universe, which'd give some low upper limit, but I don't know what it is. WilyD 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll back up this 'no'. Spin is not relative, it's not measured in relation to the surrounding space but can be absolutely determined due to the accelerations it involves. The maximum spin of one revolution every 30 trillion years (as mentioned above), would mean the universe would have to be 2000 time older than current best estimates before it did one rotation. Something rotating at a maximum of such a rate most definitely would not be described as spinning. GameKeeper (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can construct theoretical models of a rotating universe. There's no axis of rotation (much like there's no center to the expansion), but there is a direction (of the angular momentum vector), so these models violate the cosmological principle. This would be visible as an anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background. There was actually a claim a few years ago that such an anisotropy does exist (astro-ph/0502237). I don't know what the current status of this is, but the evidence for it is weak at best. -- BenRG (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised no one has mentioned Mach's principle. -- BenRG (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course, that's why I left this thread alone. Basically (if I understand it right), the only way you know for sure you're spinning is because of the presence of distant "fixed" stars. It is the presence of those incredibly distant stars that establishes your own local inertial frame. Put another way, if the whole universe was spinning, how would you know? There would be nothing to measure it against, and you could equally say that the whole non-universe was spinning and the universe was standing still. It would make no difference. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, there's no particular reason to believe Mach's principle is true... WilyD 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One could easily apply Newton's Bucket argument instead - which seems just as reasonable, and experimentally indistinguishable. WilyD 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Newton? That hack couldn't even dodge a falling apple! Reading through that article, beyond the fact that there is an external observer of the bucket, I see "true motion can be understood only in reference to absolute space" - but the notion of absolute space has been pretty throughly destroyed, along with absolute time. We're only left with relativity, and Mach used the relation to fixed/distant stars. The central axis of the bucket is pointing to one particular star, the rotating reference frame of the water is defined by the fact that other distant stars "revolve around the bucket". The point here though is that if there is nothing outside the bucket-universe, "spinning" loses all meaning, you can't define spinning if there's nothing outside to look at. That article could probably use an update to elaborate how the view of absolute measurement has since fallen apart. Franamax (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without doing the same experiment in an empty universe, you cannot establish Mach's Principle - there's no result anywhere, either theoretical or observational, to invalidate the bucket experiment - it does, in fact, demonstrate that linear motion is relative, but accelerations are absolute - this is the result of GR - all Mach's Principle suggested is that mass is normalised by the mass of the universe. I would argue GR is suggestive of Bucket, not Mach, but it's really neither here nor there until we get a second universe to test in. WilyD 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a curious observation that many people seem naturally predisposed to think of motion as absolute and rotation as relative, when the laws of physics, as deduced over time from detailed observation of how things actually work, say it's exactly the other way around. I suspect it's because, in the everyday world we live in here on Earth, there exists an obvious absolute reference for motion (the Earth itself), but no such reference for heading, the Earth's surface being, to a first order approximation, anisotropic. We then, somehow, are prone to generalize this lack of an absolute reference from heading to rotation; even though centrifugal and Coriolis effects should be familiar to anyone who has ever ridden a carousel, somehow our conviction of the relativity of rotation is so strong that many, if they puzzle over the seeming contradiction at all, end up concluding that these effects must result from some unseen influence of the surrounding, "counterrotating" world.
- Perhaps it's because humans tend to be visually oriented creatures, whereas the direct effects of absolute rotation upon our own bodies are only observable through the non-visual (kinesthetic and balance) senses. If you're sitting in a rotating chair in a windowless room, to your eyes it makes no difference if it's the chair or the room that rotates, even though, if the speed is more than a few rpm, the difference would be easy enough to feel. We don't trust our muscles and inner ear as much as we trust our eyes, and if we notice the discrepancy, it's easy enough to suspect that our non-visual senses are somehow detecting the orientation of the Earth through the walls; after all, we sense the Earth's gravity too, don't we? And the same argument can be used to explain away any other means of directly detecting the rotation of our hypothetical room, such as by holding a pendulum and seeing if it precesses or by watching the surface of water in a bucket: maybe the Earth "counterrotation" is also affecting the motion of the pendulum and the water, just as it, so the explanation goes, affects our inner ear.
- Of course, counterexamples to these simple theories of "relative rotation" are easy to find, but the catch is that the theory can always be extended, for example by assuming that the rotation we feel isn't actually relative to the Earth, or to any other nearby mass, but to the entire mass of the Universe. And since we can't actually give the entire Universe a spin and see what happens, the theory then becomes unfalsifiable. Of course, at that point Occam's razor should suggest that there are easier explanations, but this does not make a particularly convincing argument if one's intuition says otherwise, particularly if one is not sufficiently familiar with physics to see that the theory without these "Machian" effects really is simpler. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sociocultural evolution, the progression: Hunter-gatherer bands → Social rank → tribes → Social stratification → chiefdoms → Neolithic Revolution →→→ Civilization: Agrarian society (Pre-industrial society): Agrarian villages → Towns → Cities → City-states → Nation-states →→ Industrial Revolution → (Modern) Industrial society →→ (Postmodern) Post-industrial society → Informational Revolution → Information society → Digital Revolution →→ Globalization → World government?
Is that correct?
The Transhumanist 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you missed off this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.146.123 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct? Only if you assume evolution of this sort is both linear (non-branching) and teleological (driven towards a specific end). Neither of which are reasonable assumptions (or supported by evidence) in either biological or sociocultural evolution. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing which might make World government inevitable is the failure of so many to have achieved the first tier and fewer the next and so on. -- Taxa (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed out religion, which has always played a major role in social development (kings often relied on a priest-class to confirm their divine origins). That influence has varied through time and directed sociocultural evolution into several divergent paths. (Note, you can always play Civ3 to check your theory out:) Franamax (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems more or less a correct hierarchy of least to most complex societies. Keep in mind that societies, as 98.217.8.46 implied, may move "backwards" so to speak. The collapse of the Roman Empire was a step back from the nation-state to the city state for parts of Europe. They may also skip steps. The Native American tribes have pretty much been absorbed into the American nation-state.
- Durant has a hierarchy of his own going:
- family
- clan: a group of related families occupying a common tract of land, having the same totem, and governed by the same customs or laws
- tribe: a group of clans united under the same chief
- state: based on geographical contiguity rather than kinship
- ...
- I'm sure he goes on, though I haven't gotten very far in The Story of Civilization. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent read along with The Story of Philosophy. 71.100.14.205 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through my recent unsuccessful RfA in order to try and make use of some of the feedback I was given, I realise that my answers to your questions might come off at best quite forceful and at worst rude and condesending. I apologise if any offense was taken it was certatainly not intended; at the time I was operating on around two hours of sleep (not a state I would normally be editing in) and did not choose the best language or phrasing. In no way does it reflect my opinion or respect for you as an editor. Apologies, Guest9999 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite good with GIMP, if you're interested. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also pretty good with GIMP if your interested. I am also pretty good using Inkscape if you want any vector graphics done. Thanks and All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right then. You'd probably be best sending an email. I don't think Wikipedia's email service handles attachments, so the address is unclemontezumahotmail.co.uk (don't copy-paste that, the at sign is an image). I'll try to help as best I can, but if I can't, apologies in advance ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't explain it any better than the directions on the Newsletterbot page. They're pretty straightforward. Good luck with running the newsletter. --SharkfaceT/C 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the page I needed. Thank you! The Transhumanist 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made my username colorful. Thanks!!!
--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. The Transhumanist 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|