User talk:Wwheaton

This user may have left Wikipedia. Wwheaton has not edited Wikipedia since 16 August 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Home Talk Contribs Editcount My Tests My Awards

Greetings. Wwheaton is Wm. A. Wheaton, of whom more can be learned at http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/index.html. I have also edited a few times as user 71.92.70.146 or user 66.215.4.91, when I was logged out accidentally. Thanks to all who have helped and commented, and to the Wikipedia community at large! Wwheaton (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed the edits you've made to Bevatron and I must say, good show! If you have anyquestions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. And welcome to wiki! --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it. I must say I really Love Wiki, but the dangers of spreading bad information, and meaningless conflict, are a bit daunting too. So I appreciate the hand-holding, and may well turn to you for advice in the future. Wwheaton 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Mass Driver 1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In fact, please do not add {{helpme}} to talk pages; it is designed to be used by you when you need help. In fact, it is designed to be used if you have any questions, not to attract attention. -Goodshoped 02:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post on Alex's talk page and decided to butt in. WP:VANDALISM is the page explaining vandalism and how to deal with it in detail.

The easiest way to deal with vandalism is to use the "history" tab at the top of the page, which shows you a chronological (newest first) list of edits to that page. "Cur" and "Last" on the left-hand column will produce a report showing the difference between the page as of that edit and the current page, or the page as of the prior edit, respectively. You can also manually select two revisions with the radio button and hit "compare selected".

Once you have a diff, you can use the "Undo" feature to, well, undo the edits. Or, from "history" you can click on the date of the edit, which allows you to bring up the "edit this page" as of that version, so you can restore the page to the last pre-vandalism edition. Just be careful not to nuke legitimate edits made since the vandal struck.

Finally, when a user vandalizes a page, try adding a user warning template to their talk page, such as Template:uw-vand1. If they already have a bunch of templates from before, or they are doing something really awful like moving 20 pages at once to "pagename ON WHEELS!", then add them to the administrators' vandalism noticeboard which will result in them being blocked in short order.

Hope that helps. <eleland/talkedits> 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like ClueBot - and everybody else - entirely missed the vandalism at issue, which is why your changes were not restored. The next person to edit it only removed the gibberish without re-instating the "list of uses", and nobody noticed. In this case, fortunately, nobody else came along and edited the article productively since then, so it's safe to revert all the way back a couple of weeks, which I just did. <eleland/talkedits> 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry christmas, thanks for the question regarding RTGs and Pu-238. The first thing to understand about Pu-238 is that it is far more active per gram than Pu-239, this can cause it to behave in a very different way. The self damage due to radiation which occurs in PuO2 pellets is much faster with Pu-238 pellets than with Pu-239 pellets. As a result a pellet of Pu-238 will be more likely to fall apart at an early time than a Pu-239 pellet. I would expect that all Pu RTGs would use PuO2 as the chemical form for the Pu. While Pu metal would be more dense it is very reactive towards air/water, and Pu corrosion is very complex.

Now the good news, the RTGs made using Pu are oftein made in such a way that the Pu fuel is packaged in such a way that it is likely that the package will tolerate the heat of re-enetry. Also Pu(IV) is very insoluble in pH 7 water, but be aware that collidal PuO2 could be very mobile under some conditions, also insoluble Pu in the air is more harmful to the lungs than soluble Pu while in the case of oral Pu the reverse is true. It is also important to bear in mind that the fuel and the package only have to contain the Pu for about 900 years, after this time 99.9% will have decayed away. I am not able to say with authority if a RTG which has reentered will be safe or not. You would need to do more literature research, anyway "what is safe" ?

By the way you got my colour code in the Trinityglassactivity bar chart almost perfectly right, the green bars are for activation products, the red for a fission product and the blue for natural radioisotopes.Cadmium (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA is for reporting usernames that violate our username policy. To report users who are repeatedly vandalizing, please go to WP:AIV. However, before reporting there, vandals must have a full set of warnings. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Lara❤Love 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can create the talk page when it does not already exist. I looked over their edits and, not knowing much about VeggieTales, I'm not sure if the edits are vandalism or not. Much of it appears to be good faith editing to me. Whether the additions are relevant or not, I can't say. But I'm sure the article custodians will sort it out. Lara❤Love 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may be interested in our adoption program. Lara❤Love 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I guess I am not certain either, I thought we were under attack. Live & learn. Wwheaton (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Solar power satellite, my apologies for deleting a lot of stuff. I clicked on a "diff" or an old version button in the history page, and stupidly edited what I saw and saved, discarding subsequent stuff including more of my own comments. I was just not paying attention to what I was doing, I did not intend malice. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WillWare (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.Groupthink (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where they actually first created the interpretations article. Dreadstar † 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "raw work", heh, I'm actually refining the raw ore into a more polished article..I hope! I look forward to your return to editing the article! Although, your project of 70um infrared star photometry sounds fascinating! Dreadstar † 08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious; but important I guess, like much else. See http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mips/70ufot/index.html for a taste -- I hope to have 50% more observations processed and up by later today. Anyhow, I am just delighted with the work you are doing in the sandbox, and do hope I can contribute usefully (and "legally") later in the week. BTW, while it seems sensible to chat in one user's talk space or the other (rather than in both), how can I notify you when I've responded? There ought to be a way, WP has tools for everything.... Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I think it's starting to look pretty good. I'm trying to finish up sourcing for the Monolith and HAL sections, then I think it'll be ready to go! Dreadstar † 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no further comment on the Draft version, I asked that the page be unprotected and moved the draft into place. Let me know what you think! I'm still working on the HAL segment, your assistance with that would be most welcome! Dreadstar † 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad you like it! Unfortunately, Groupthink decided to remove everything he disagreed with, edit warred over it instead of discussing and crossed the line into WP:3RR territory. I reported him and he was blocked for 24 hours. The last version before he started removing sourced material is here. Dreadstar † 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Wikipedian core values that have been vociferously discussed on the Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey talk page, another one of WP's doctrine's is "don't bite the newbies". In other words, be welcoming and patient with newer users who have good intentions. Well, I bit you, and I apologize for that. Your heart is definitely in the right place, and I'm eager to see if you can in fact write a well-sourced article that establishes the topic's independent notability. If you can, then I will be that article's staunchest defender. Best of luck. Groupthink (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwheaton! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

No need to wait for me. I look forward to seeing your developments. Have fun. The Transhumanist 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above.Dreadstar † 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these HAL materials are yours, except Europa, attempt no landings there.  :) Dreadstar † 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edits at GRO J1655-40. At first I was scratching my head wondering why this was on my watch list. Then I realised that I created the talk page. There might be something useful in there as it came from an old submission AfC. Perhaps you could take a look when you have time. Cheers. MSGJ (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the combustion instabilities like screeching don't usually cause damage by mechanical means (although they could do in principle, particularly at very low frequencies, but screeching is much higher frequency).

No, the main problem is that they thin the boundary layer down, and that means the heat flow (which is normally stupidly high anyway) goes up massively. The wall then usually suffers from catastrophic burn through.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no disputing the smallest "observability" of our universe as given by the size of a photon (i.e. the planck length). This limit is well known to exist and is accepted by quantum mechanics. I agree, that there could be something smaller than the photon, but it would be fundamentally unobservable to us even if there was.

If you would be so kind as to read the gravastar article, I explain much of my reasoning behind the need fix to the black holes theory. Please tell me what you think. Much of the info is directly from published research, however the interpretation of it is my own work. Does it sound plausible?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been unprotected, so improvements and additions can resume! Dreadstar † 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editing again! With the attention given to this article's sourcing, it would be good to provide references for edits like this. Otherwise it looks like the editor's opinion, which would violate WP:NOR. Dreadstar † 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're quoting or paraphrasing Clarke, that's good, but it looks like an original opinion - so identifying where it comes from is important if it's challenged. Dreadstar † 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I luv you, seriosly that message you sent me, I have limited expertice, your just an astronomer and a physicist, aka what I want to be and What most of my questions are in. How exactely do photons superimpose themselves into quanta. Just dum the math down a little and I'll figure it out. Thanks! 11341134a (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you like better? I had to do these from scratch to avoid any copyright complications.

• details
• plain

Dreadstar † 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Bob -- I'm a physicist, working in high-energy astronomy for long, and lately in IR on Spitzer space telescope in Pasadena. I have enjoyed and appreciated your labors lately on Cygnus X-1, which is an old friend of us gamma guys. I am fairly new to Wikipedia (& maybe a slow learner to boot...), so looking to meet the more experienced professionals working the turf. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wwheaton. Thank you very much for your comments on the Cygnus X-1 article. I'm hoping to make the page more comprehensive and bring it up to FA quality, but it may take a while. Unfortunately my professional field isn't in astronomy, although I have had a life-long interest in the subject so hopefully I know enough to make it an interesting read.

Most of the astronomy-related discussions take place over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, so you might consider visiting. I'm sure they'll appreciate your comments. Thanks again.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Cygnus X-1 article. It will take a long time to review it (and the references) as carefully as they deserve. We are still working with the earth-occultation BATSE data, and now have the full nine-year stretch of the CGRO data for it. We seemed to see a ~1 MeV flare in [HEAO 3] data in 1979, and our BATSE occulation project at JPL was above all motivated by the desire to try and find other similar instances. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good luck with your search. I hope you find some interesting results.—RJH (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, would you mind reading something of mine at talk:Planck time. I'm interested to hear what you think.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but then why do I still feel so ignorant? My view on the question you raise is that the theory of everything is string theory, and it tells you how matter interacts fundamentally, while Godel's theorem is about computations and tells you that you can't predict computer program behavior arbitrarily far into the future. I wrote a blurb along those lines on Theory of everything a while ago, but it got erased. There is no contradiction between knowing all the rules of nature and not being able to predict how a computing system will behave, because computing systems can always surprise you by learning your methods of predicion and defying them. The distinction is between physical laws, which are like the instruction set of the computer, and computer programs which are combinations of those instructions into complex programs. You can know the instruction set but you can't know the eventual behavior of every program. Hope that helps.Likebox (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used to be a student in string theory, but I am not in the field anymore. It took me a very long time to understand any of it, because I started out completely skeptical. But I am not skeptical anymore, and anyway, it's easy to keep up with stuff when there's arxiv. The main point which changed my mind personally is that black holes have a semiclassical entropy which demands that their dynamics is described in certain dimensions and limits by a field theory in a dimension one less--- a principle called holography. This leads to physical limits on the charge and mass of particles, which are true because of general thermodynamic principles, not because of strings. In order to work in quantum gravity, these principles demand certain light winding modes in certain cases, and this is provided in string theory by the string extension, or by membranes, or by other extended objects.

The strings themselves should be viewed as quantum-size extremal charged extended black holes and string theory describes the scattering of strings as a deformation of the black hole surface, just as 'tHooft suggested for thermal point black holes in the eighties. I think (as do a lot of people) the theory itself is more or less well defined by now, and I think it is the correct framework. What the details of the theory predict for our universe is another matter. I hope you find out more about the axiomatization program of Hilbert, although I think you should keep in mind that the interesting questions in mathematics are all in the limit of infinite future, what happens when calculations are done forever, and in physics, that's not usually true. Cheers.Likebox (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the comments I made on the black hole page. I had just failed an extremely hard Biology test and was looking for a vent. I have replaced those comments with less inflamitory ones. Dont worry I wont be failing any bio tests any time soon. I beg your apologies, 11341134a (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - friendly question for to answer if you would please :). I've seen your edits around Wikipedia and have just looked at your pages at Caltech. I must say it is nice to be able to ask your opinion on something. Your work with Gamma Rays is awesome. I am an "armchair" astronomer...

So, I saw the edit that you made {then undid}. My question revolves around that.

What is your take on including these sorts of (non-inline) types of references in Wikipedia. You know, the "generic" ones. Just curious.

E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I was under the impression that you'd been contributing for some time. Good to have you here. Welcome to Wikipedia! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please note that references in talk pages are supposed to be written thus:[1] —Cesar Tort 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still learning my way around this strange place. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can still edit your previous post and convert the https so that other editors may see the links you added. —Cesar Tort 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Cesar Tort 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I may even remember the next time the occasion arises, but mostly I delighted to find your Karellen page. (At work I am [email protected].) I consider him the best real hero in all Clarke's work [but you may think otherwise?] I hit CE when I was 13, in 1955, after I had been an atheist for long. It convinced me that dogmatic atheism was untenable, as Clarke takes a straight materialist path and gets quite plausibly into deep deep mystery, something as vast as the galaxy and as mysterious as the brain. So, I am a church-going agnostic, and Clarke gets a good bit of the credit or the blame. Wwheaton (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill - Thanks for restoring the article. As it turns out Onsly has been making working in some articles. I had let him know about using the edit summary on March 16th (8 days ago) because of a similar situation.

What he had done is reduce the amount of content in the Automated Transfer Vehicle about the Jules Verne ATV. User GW Simulations split the article on March 9th.

So to you it looked like a questionable edit. I encountered nearly the same thing previously. It's all about the edit summary. If he'd left a note, this wouldn't have happened. I restored his edit as it looks like that was a good thing to do. I looked & it doesn't look like GW Simulations reduced the original ATV article at all since the creation of the Jules Verne article. I left Onsly another note on his talk page regarding the use of the edit summary & how it's necessary being that this is a very large collaborative project.

Thanks Bill & good to have you on board. Cheers! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it -- I forget the edit summary myself sometimes. I could tell it was not malicious. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left the raw text of my version on the talk page. BTW, I have been trained (? ApJ style, I think) to hyphenate "X-ray" when it is used as an adjective, but not as a noun. No idea how this fits with external conventions. -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my edit summary is lost, but you'll figure it out I guess. I started with the figure caption & couldn't stop once I got going. B Wwheaton (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've asked at the reference desk about the correct usage of the hyphen. It wouldn't surpirse me to find that it may have already been discussed at some point.—RJH (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've responded at the place. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one at the top of the talk page? If so, that one stays to show that the article went through an earlier AfD. If there's another delete tag, let me know - I can't seem to see one.

If the source is in relation to the subject of the article (interpetations of 2001), then it wouldn't be OR. If you want to give me the links, I'll take a look and see...say, have you seen this site?

Oh, yes! Dial F! I remember that story very well...read it ages ago..great stuff....as with all of Clarke's ideas; and yes, he does seem to have a penchant for either killing us off or evolving us out of existence..;) Dreadstar † 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is that even the case for a link to a section?! Doesn't seem reasonable. (There is even a subsection for sounding rockets, but I wasn't sure how to link to that.) Live & learn.... Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the past I've had criticism for wikilinks that appear to point to one article but instead go to an entirely different article. So I'm careful not to make that mistake. In this case, the intended subject of the "suborbital rocket launches" link seemed like it should be pretty clear: rockets that do not reach orbit. Instead you had it changed to the topic of X-ray astronomy observation. I'm very sorry, but I tend to be a little aggressive in my editing when a page is up for FAC; the reviewers are super picky about every little detail. Anyway, I tried putting in a compromise statement.—RJH (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I'll defer to your judgement on that. SparrowsWing _(talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The surface of a sphere most certainly has a center of mass. If the surface is uniform (you don't say this)throughout, the center of mass of the surface will be approximately, if not exactly, in the common center of the sphere - somewhat in the manner of the doughnut's center of mass being in the hole of the doughnut.

Never mind all the professed good intent - if you really meant well you'd remove that 'unscientific' shall we say, comment from the end of my theory.

Show me something with no center. If you were any kind of scientist, that should take you about five seconds.

Pete Lamont, Author:- The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It looks like you introduced the word "strong" into the lead of the Cygnus X-1 article. Unfortunately this conflicts with Wikipedia:MoS#Unnecessary_vagueness, so I would appreciate it if you could either use more precise language or revert to the way it was. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and commentary. I only hope that interested people like you will acquire a few neodymium magnets and try to assemble up to what would be 10Ne20 and see what the models tell you. The magnets continue to collect (very forcefully) but the logic of the series expansion numbers is simpler to understand with the checkerboard logic protocol. My modified Nuclide chart doesn't provide much data for the 8th level construction details except to note that every element has 2 categories of nuclides and that in each element the even neutron number category is more stable (with some irregularities. So if you'll make that test, maybe I can change your conception of the 2He4 nucleus. And Thanks.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)PS 66 is just a young squirt why I'm old enough to be a fervent Isaac Asimov reader.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm curious enough to be interested in what your point is, but I don't know enough nuclear physics to have the concept. I remember going to a talk Pauling gave at UCSD on a "sphereon model" (? I think it was) that argued that alpha particles significantly retain their identity in at least some nuclei. I guess the Ne was 5-alpha's. Anyhow, I have almost no idea what you are talking about, so don't get your hopes up.... Have you got the article somewhere in your user space where I can see it? (I think that tends to be permitted when it is not abusively excessive. I believe you can get a copy of a deleted article e-mailed to you if you want it.)

Asimov was my favorite after Clarke, maybe tied with Stanislaw Lem. Good minds, all. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 :(UTC)The deleted article that I'm trying to promote under the category Real Physical Models is what I submitted together with a picture in Talk Nuclear Model. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Pauling I hope he said that Alpha particles constitute the core of the nucleus around which additional deuterons and excess neutrons are accumulated. Thus 6 Carbon consists of 2 alpha plus 2 deuteron particles and if you use the magnets to try to make 4Be9 you'll find that the magnets wont bond 2 other magnets side by side but only 2 other magnets that are end bonded to each other. The implication being that 4Be8 consists in one alpha particle end bonded to another. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as storytelling capability in science matters I like Clarke and Michener, but I think you underestimate the capability of Asimov to supply scientific (and mathematical) information to readers. And I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about, particularly since they're against original thinking. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you and your cohorts there at Caltech building and checking out the indications of stability of the models relative to the available nuclear data and saying "Gee this points out where additional study and data checking might improve our concepts about this subject matter." And then you could blame for having an original idea. Would that be legal? It only took about 5 years to build the models and my curiosity as to the correlation between their symmetry indications and and the nuclear data stability indications still exists. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS And I do have a copyrighted article and a copyright on the "structural models", but I'm afraid I cant prove or contribute anything mathematical because I'm only an Engineer. WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UT)

That's all right. I once drove over 1000 miles (round trip) to show a person my models to see what he thought and he said that it couldn't be right because it's supposedly impossible for nucleons to come in contact with each other. But I still think the models point out things like that there ought to be stable EE isotopes more massive than OE83Bi209 because I can build models of them and I cant find any theory that they cant exist. And I get agravated when I read that not only there isn't any but also that there cant be any. So thanks and lots of luck and keep it up on Wikipedia. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-formatting fixed, I think Wwheaton (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Big Bang Theory== I just wanted to mention to you that now we maybe have permission to discuss alternate theories as to how the universe got started besides that it was created out of nothing. Do you think it worthwhile to pursue that? I've got ideas. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)PS I appreciate your info re ISS time lag factor had no idea it was so small.WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) == Oh yes and about this idea that the space continuum expansion factor is added to the c velocity factor in deterimining the size of the universe: Are you up on that? .WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

= I've been thinking about your "escaping" theory and note that according to the E=Mcsquared and the SR mass expansion theories the Mass of the escapees would be expanding to infinity as they approached the velocity of light. This casts doubt on their ability to constantly accelerate, as well as for the suns of the Universe to be expanding at c velocity, as I added in my Talk Page. Do you have any comment on this?. WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" I also added a Catch Up section which more or less says the same thing. WFPMWFPM (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to --

Could some people from this wikiproject please watchlist these, as I am currently the only person watching them! Also,I hope to be able to continue this work in a few weeks, and I expect that the early stuff will include a lot of asteroids, etc. Can I ask if I am able to continue trying to offload these onto you? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For talk:WikiProject Astronomy I have signed on to watch the following:

• 10004 Igormakarov
• 10007 Malytheatre
• 10009 Hirosetanso
• 10021 Henja
• 10024 Marthahazen
• 10029 Hiramperkins
• 10034 Birlan

with the thought that I will keep track of "interested editors", who make substantive non-minor changes to their articles, and solicit them to be watchers if any get too frisky. My hope is that this will be a very boring task. Wwheaton (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing that! I really appreciate it, please feel free (and by that I mean I want you to :P) to update/correct any info. As you correctly guessed I don't have any expert knowledge at all (20 year old literature undergrad) but I've always been fascinated with astronomy to the point that I built my own reflector. Anyway, the content from the instrument section came from HEASARC and was basically copy/pasted since their content is PD. I had realized that the information they have had some problems, and in a few cases when writing the lead and filling in the infobox I found information there that was contradicted by the Russian sources (written in English) I used. When that happened I always gave precedence to the Russian papers. Unfortunately though, I was forced to rely to a great extent on HEASARC because there simply aren’t many English sources about Granat available online (I live in brazil, and the grand total of books about soviet satellites in the libraries I have access to is probably 0..). I was particularly frustrated at not being able to use the IKI website in Russian which appears to be full of useful information, and is certainly a lot more reliable. So yes, if you can go over the article in more detail or know another astronomer who could, I would be most grateful! Acer (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, If you could get other astronomers to contribute, even if just to proofread, that would be fantastic. Feel free to point them my way if you need somebody to teach them the basics or to properly format any content contribuitions they make. Also, thanks for dropping NASA a note, I feel its really important that reference sites get their facts right since in many cases they're the only sources people have access to. (as another exemple of incomplete information there, I'm quite positive that Granat had 8 instruments instead of 7, by using automated translation I found mention in some russian papers of a "KS-18M" device. I never added it in since I didnt trust myself to make sense of autotranslated technical text) I truly hope that your message forces them to review that page, especially since it came from a professional astronomer Acer (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault, I didn't make that clear, I guess. When I said 'The Center', I definitely meant the Center of Mass. So the question is - does the Cosmos have a Center of Mass, like everything else?

It sure used to have a Center of Mass. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Cosmos was once a Singularity. But didn't this Singularity, representing the Cosmos, didn't it have a Center of Mass?

Or imagine a short time after the Big Bang, with everything in the Universe flying away from everything else.. didn't it have a Center of Mass then?

A Center, from which everything was leaving. By suggesting the Cosmos has a Center of Mass, just like everything else, I do not feel I am stepping outside of the bounds of Science. I rather think my suggestion has some merit, and should be allowed as a 'possibility', at least.

It's my fault too that I came across, to you, as 'hostile', it was certainly not my intent. I know exactly what it was that 'irked' me. I laid out my Cosmology to you, and you responded by questioning me on the Surface of a Sphere.

And I still maintain the surface of a Shere, or any part of the surface, assuming that surface is a real, three dimensional object, has a Center of Mass. If, of course, the 'Surface' is a mere 2 dimensional illustration, that would make finding its C of M difficult.

I am also maintaining that the Cosmos still has a Center of Mass, that it came with one and that it didn't lose it. And that we are in a Big Crunch situation, and that a Singularity has evolved there, at the Center (of Mass) of the Cosmos, since the beginning of Time.

I would very much appreciate a mention of my Theory - which follows naturally from all the known laws of Science - depends on them, really, in Wiki, somewhere. I believe Science needs to know. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input and now I know about Teleology and must be a metaphysicist. But being an Engineer, I cant think of any compelling reason to worry about why water was designed to run downhill. And as for the Big Bang theory I'd rather think the water was uphill in the first place. And as for dark matter/energy, how about a little more research and verification re the stability of the neutron in free space? Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have anything against neutrons in the sun or n+p capture gammas. What I need in the Central Whirlpool scenario concept is a way for accumulating atomic structures to get rid of excess angular momentum, And I think that might be done by changing some of the neutrons into protons that have something (an electron whip tail?) That can get rid of the radiation particles that you call gamma rays. And we could call the research "The negatively charged universe?" and think about Newton's first rule of Philosophy. And my apologies to Hans Bethe and Regards, WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,me again. In response to your message to me, it does seem to me that the Cosmos certainly started out as a finite body - a singularity, according to accepted understanding - if I'm not mistaken. It still must have been finite shortly after the Big Bang, I'm inclined to believe.

My first question, therefore, would be - at what time did the Cosmos 'go infinite', or did it? How does one 'go infinite', anyhow? Is it a sudden thing, or does it occur only slowly.

I prefer to think the Cosmos is finite, with a Center of Mass like every other finite thing. I am not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate any opportunity to explain my side.

My second and last question to you is, 'Do you think there is room for my theory, that there is indeed, a Black Hole at the Center of the Universe, in Wiki - anywhere?

Maybe, I thought, it could serve as an example of 'Fringe Science' - a Theory, that while it conforms to the Laws of Physics, actually depends on them, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavyweights', The Big Bang, for example - the mirror image of which - this is. 72.39.252.217 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. Thank you for your last reply. It does seem to me that the Cosmos started out 'finite', according to accepted Theory, when it was just a singularity. I think it was still finite some time after the Big Bang. I think it's still finite.

I'm not interested in 'winning' any 'arguments', but I always appreciate an opportunity to present my side.

Is there any place for my Theory? I thought, maybe in 'Fringe Science', it could be briefly presented as a Theory which, tho' it conforms with Gravity and all the other Laws of Physics, could never hope to compete with the established 'Heavies', the Big Bang, or 'String Theory', for example.

If, however, there is no room for 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe', in Wiki, please tell me so that we can move on. 72.39.252.217 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what you have told me, I'll have to take that as a 'no' to my theory, 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe.'

I think it's sad, that in an encyclopedia that claims to hold 'the sum' of the world's knowledge, that this particular piece of 'knowledge', should be repressed.

However, I must stand by your decision - sorry for having wasted your time so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.252.217 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, but so far I am unconvinced. Watching, however, and it's good to know I am not the only one aware of this! --Rodhullandemu 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re WarOnRugs = pretty transparent, from here. Same use of dodgy sources, same addition of LGBT project. No doubt at all. I'm here 20/24 or so at present so will usually catch things pretty quickly. --Rodhullandemu 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is like that!! If I may ask, which denomination do you attend? My family has been Presbyterian since before my ancestors settled Ireland from Scotland in the 17th century. Despite my own ambivalence on the topic, I find centuries of familial tradition to be a powerful allure. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've replied on my talk page. ^Khukri 10:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The video you showed to me was extremely interesting. As you noticed, i am very interested in physics and astronomy to which you have a very impressive background. :] If you're interested in any topic in particular, i'd love to take a look. I appologize for not responding quickly. I'm on wikipedia nearly every day but i'm not logged on as often. Best, John Taftgod (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidYork71 is not going to go away, so I have semi-protected the article for a week. That only leaves his new accounts, which can be blocked on sight. He will run out of steam before we do. --Rodhullandemu 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to meet any scientist, involved in the LHC or otherwise, with the slightest concern about the LHC causing disasters. A few people seem glad that the LSAG is doing its very conservative report, just so we can be sure, but most see it entirely as an exercise in explaining to the public why there's no cause for concern. Admittedly, we don't always do public relations as well as I wish we did, but I think the report is a step in the right direction.

If you're interested in quantum field theory, I highly recommend this textbook, which gets across many of the key concepts at the upper-division undergraduate level. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you copied the "legal challenge" section to the "Safety of the LHC" article. I suggest that the section either be removed from the "Safety of the LHC" article, or that the "Legal challenge" section in the "LHC" article be merged with the "Operational safety" section. Either way is fine with me. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me the legal information needs to be retained in the safety article, as it is so closely related to the safety subject. Yet I also think it is useful to keep the bare status of the legal challenge in the LHC article while it remains current. Personally, I am mostly opposed to loading the main article with all the details, (imaginary...) risk scenarios, fault-tree analyses, legal motions and counter motions, and references without end.

I agree one section is enough in the LHC article, and intended to merge it all into one there, but I ran out of time. Also, it seemed to me "Operational safety" is not such a good section title, as it sounds like concerns about workers getting run over by a fork-lift, something small-scale and local. I didn't want to make it too sensational, but also not quite so mundane sounding, and gave up in the event. At the moment the best I come up with is "Planetary safety concerns". Best, Wwheaton (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I support the merge in the LHC article. Also, I think just "Safety" would be fine for the heading, or maybe "Safety reports and reviews" or "Safety assessments". I don't like "Planetary safety concerns" as it puts undue weight on the "concerns" and there are also local safety aspects such as environmental impacts, radiation, etc. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Khukri's talk page. I accept that I can not compete with the lot of you. If you force me to concede, without a functional dispute resolution process I guess I may not have much choice. --Jtankers (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Saw your edit on the that page. I guess I need to site the "Massive X-ray binaries". Sorry about that. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I only wrote it because the AJ papers I read states that Supergiant Fast X-ray Transients are a subgroup of Supergiant X-ray binary and Be/X-ray binary is a subgroup of Massive X-ray binary. And Massive X-ray binary is a subgroup of HMXB. If it is not an issue, I can put it back the way I first wrote it when I find the papers to site that. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you were right i was busy w/ end of year stuff, i havent been on wiki in so long! I am now doing research on microfinance for a Model United Nations Conference, I am helping to wright the briefing paper. its tuff! I am also busy learning about Casmir's force and how vacums work. If casmir's force works here with virtual particle popping in and out of existence wud particles here pop into existance in another dimention that the virtual particles are supposedly found in and make up casmirs force ther?! Have a great summer --Josh 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw you on the interstellar travel discussion page. You wrote about HEAO-3 too. I worked on that in Ed Stone's lab. Were you there too? DonPMitchell (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta, I was at JPL with Bud Jacobson's group on the Ge spectrometer, C-1. I'd love it if you could beef up the discussion of the C-3 experiment (or point me to some easily accessible references I could read and comprehend myself in a short time). I'm working on Spitzer Space Telescope at Caltech now. Were you a student or postdoc there? What are you doing now? Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, Just found this which I thought you might personally find this interesting, outside of our shenanigans on the LHC articles. It's a 2 hour interview with nobel laureates, including Carlo Rubbia, David Gross, Hooft, Veltman, George Smoot and a few others and their thoughts on the LHC. There are also some discussions about the LHC safety and Wagner. cheers ^Khukri 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm interested. Don't know where I'll find two hours, but send me the link (? I don't see it above?) and thanks. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, sry I thought I'd included the link. http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=36712

Enjoy ^Khukri 09:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything is OK, and see you when you get back. ^Khukri 07:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I expect all will be well. Wwheaton (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am back, more or less. Thanks again. Wwheaton (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, hope all is well? ^Khukri 06:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my first encounter with back surgery, three weeks in the hospital (only expected 4-5 days). Results appear promising, but it will be a while before I really know for sure. This is just another chapter of a lifelong orthopedic saga (diastrophic dysplasia), mostly just a big nuisance. -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bill hope ur back 'll be ok. Thanks for the book recommendation ill start on that after i finish a book on einstiens most important theories. I love the concerto too. I got in an AP History class this year! 1st test on summer reading average D but I got a C! On hte scale thats an A - A+. Sorry i havent exactly kept in touch end of school was hectic. I worked over the summer too so not much time spent on computer. Tell me more about the place u work at as a teacher, Caltech is it, I might go there fr college. My best regards Josh 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a sophomore in High School Bill. I would love to apply to Caltech for thier astronomy program! I want to go to Yale but that might not happen. So yeah im syched about the idea.... How bout u Bill how r u doin these days???????? Josh 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11341134a (talk • contribs)

This [2] is much better. Thank you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the mention(s) of String Theory. (I am a String Theorist.) — Orion11M87 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Brian Greene wrote the best article on the LHC. Also it was outstanding that the fact it was published in the New York Times, so a lot of people got an excellent insight. On the Superstring theory, one of the biggest difficulties are that there are lot of possibilities in what ways strings can vibrate, which makes it even harder after the fact that they work in the Calabi–Yau manifold dimensions (which are sometimes very difficult for many people). So I have been thinking on to really revolutionize it in having more physicists on board and making high-efficiency collaborations possible. One of the main problems are that it has a long learning curve, and the physicist's collaboration on it is not so state of the art. About 2 years ago, I seriously started looking on to the idea of having special operating system of science for learning, and for scientists to share ideas and equations in realtime. I have started working on its architecture and interface. I am hoping on developer release in late 2009. So it will be finally great to have a science dedicated operating system, short learning curve (advanced realtime interactive architecture), and very high productivity with science and math. I have been looking forward on visiting JPL, so will meet you there. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing an email to you, and my apologies for not replying in a timely manner (I have been very busy and hadn't had much time on the computer). Thanks and cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want to be at JPL/Caltech right now, but in the time I have, I have to wait until 2009. I hope everything is fine there, after the surgery. — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. Could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance, A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For mentioning the talk mistake. It was hardly something important, and I'm sure anything that got deleted was an accident. It is now restored to the talk page. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you had an answer to your question at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Minkowski_diagram. As I had a copy of Rindler's book to hand I looked it up. Robinhw (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really appalled that you do not comment on Verbal's vandalism of the discussion on the Safety of the Large Hadron Colllider. Don't you realize that he is censoring content? He has already destroyed my other contributions and blocked me from edits ... do you seriously think I'm the only one?? It is irrelevant whether you agree with my point of view or not, this person is wading through Wikipedia and deleting or destroying other people's work simply because he doesn't approve! DasV (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment here. If you feel my editing has been inappropriate please let me know here or on my talk, however I really don't think anything needs to be said at this point. I have been removing off topic discussion and personal attacks per WP:TALK, and asked DasV to centralise discussion on his talk page. I haven't blocked, banned, or otherwise barred DasV from sensible and on topic editing (I'm not an admin!) All the best, Verbal chat

Personally I like to give the discussion on talk pages pretty wide latitude, as long as it is not abusive, which I don't think DasV's was. But the official guidelines were certainly bent, and we should pay attention to them. So I was beginning to think that it was time to take the discussion off to our personal talk pages, as we (myself included) were beginning to repeat ourselves in a tiresome and non-constructive way. I myself would have just archived the earlier material under the "biased" heading, left the later section (from DasV's "article is a joke" post), called for further talk to be carried out on our personal pages, and later taken action to cut off the argument if it had continued much further. So I don't think Verbal's action was really wrong.

You must understand, DasV, that we've had similar arguments for about a year, and it gets wearisome. User:Jtankers did an heroic job of defending the contrarian position for several months, and I thought that was at least within Wiki guidelines and pretty civilized, even though we disagreed. (He seemed really convinced that there was a ~50% chance of disaster (which I believe over the top by a factor of probably a trillion), so I had some sympathy for his honest terror.) Your argument seems more general, broadly dismissive of the benefits of scientific research in comparison with the costs, considering both dollars and risks. This is a deep and difficult issue (I think) and probably worthy of an article (tho my own prejudices are clear), but huge, far broader than our LHC context allows. Anyhow, I'm sorry if you felt censored, but ultimately it really is necessary to make serious suggestions for changes to the main article, and back those suggestions up with reliable sources. You might want to review the archives from 2008 Jan to September to see where we've been with that. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well stated case Wwheaton. There is no point to deletion of remarks on discussion pages unless they are abusive and/or vandalism. It is nothing more than censorship of the discussion, and many many now on Wikipedia have a penchant for 'deletion'. I understand the repeated nature of the discussion at times, but the alternative is to simply regurgitate government sources. I agree that the LHC risk is minimal, and I said so; the point was that there was no admission in either article that the cost to benefit was minimal also. The discussion pages serve to document such exclusions, particularly in the case of the topic being revisited. In that sense Verbal's actions were indeed wrong, and served no purpose other than highlighting his own personal desire to eliminate any contra-Cern communications. It would have been different if I had simply changed the article unilaterally. As to the degree of risk I point to Herbert Dingle's book Science at the Crossroads, also maligned by orthodoxy and dogma, yet nevertheless prophetic regarding the possible costs for a lack of scientific understanding. Verbal might have understood this had he read the most recent object of deletion that I posted, then again censors do not read that which they do not understand or agree with. Thank you for addressing this. DasV (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Faustnh (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, thank you for your notification. Yes, I completely agree with you on the question that archival procedure of Life Talk page should be given a better treatment. I will express my opinion there.

By the way, in my last check of Wikipedia I've made a change to the article I wrote. I've made some additions I've been intended to write since some time ago, and I would like you checked it out.

Thank you and best regards.

Hello Wwheaton. I just noticed the contributions you have done in Wikipedia and I realize you are in a different league than user Mitra. In the past I have had to fend off religious zealots (offended to their very soul), creationists, Intelligent Design dudes, just plain vandals and miscelaneous comming out of the wood works. I see you are looking at life from a serious physics perspective and you have the background to do so. I applaud that and look forward to learning some tricks from you; I am a cell & molecular biologist. Surely you have noticed during your ample scientific writing experience in Wikipedia of the need to quote previously published papers. Although your kernel information ratios concept is interesting, I do not believe it has been published, and I can not honestly say it is a mainstream biology concept that can be used to support the presented definition of life. Sincerely looking forward to constructive dialogue, BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wwheaton, FYI - I'm in fact in a different league. Consider me just a foolish kiddo. I've not bothered to check the talk page archive before writing that 'definition' [and when I did I've disliked 'pink unicorns' right away]. Nor have I tried to do any research in the subject in the past ten years. The idea is not original and have been present in the literature for quite a while. Really, I think, I took the idea from Harry Potter. That Rowling person is talking about the information transfer throughout the whole series. To the point of being boring in fact. --Mitra (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wwheaton. Thank you for being logical in your arguments and for listening mine as well. I think that biologists are to high up in the food chain to define life :) And forget that chemistry and in its term physics drives all that funky cellular machienary. I doubt they even know the notion of the thought experiment.  ;) --Mitra (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wwheaton, I know that at first it seems ridiculous and unfair that independent scientific thinking is not allowed, and it is even discouraged in Wikipedia. However, restricting the material to previously published papers (peer reviewed), helps ensure the veracity and reliability of the information presented. Remember it is an open encyclopedia and anyone has access to the edit button, whether they understand the subject or not. If all editors had a degree in science/technology/etc. it would not be such a big handicap as this population -in general- takes time to understand the Wiki rules and investigate the topic prior to editing; but reality shows that not all editors have the understanding or the intelectual honesty expected; for example, during the past I have had to delete statements claiming that fire and certain computer softwares can be considered to be alive. In this context I had a first impresion that your information theory was heading toward some kind of electronic memory and artificial life. Anyway, I apologize for my rudeness, and as a researcher, I appaud your curiosity.

Regarding the information kernel ratios, at an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. When attempting to detect life, physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. So I think that your proposed system may be an additional perspective to assist in the description of life, not to define it.

I strongly suspect that one reason biologists have not produced an oficial-looking sentence that defines life, is that we don't want to be boxed in to a pre-established concept of the many ways life manifests, or could manifest. Creating a one sentence definition, whether narrow or wide, would be either too vague or limiting. If you look around in competent literature, it is more likely that you will find descriptions or characteristics of known life, as very few will adventure to actually produce a definition. Although my cell & molecular background is on heath care (humans), I spend time reading on characteristics of life because I am very interested in the subject of astrobiology, and I keep a close eye on what they are looking for as a sign of past or present life. There are several suggestions for things to look for, and mostly they all come down to questioning the physicochemical data for an anomaly. Although thermodynamic entropy seems to be the prime "red flag" at the moment, signs of metabolism like 12-C, 13-C, 14-C incorporation ratios in gases and biomolecules, are high on the list. The good news is that none of these asume that the processes are being carried on inside a cell.

As you know, as the scientific fields expand, people become very specialized. I have not read anything about biological information ratios but I will keep an eye open and will get back to you if I do. Take care. With much respect and friendship, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As a piece of interesant trivia, the human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs. The Van Dyke's salamander has about 70 billion base pairs. The uni-cellular amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs. How does DNA information relate to structural complexity? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( --Faustnh (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ) Hi Bill, you will probably know, but in case you don't, you could take a look at Knol service. It's not perfect, but it's a resource to consider. Best regards.[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization! I noticed you were making improvements to the ISS article. What areas of space colonization are you interested in? Wronkiew (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! This is nutty. You came to my rocket launch out in Irwindale last year. I think we've met in Ventura too. Small world! Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I would take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting or Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion asap. Dr. Blofeld, Waacstats, Grutness, et al can probably advise or help. Cheers, Pegship (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ok to me, what were your concerns? No porn stars in it now so far as I could see. dougweller (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two things, I guess. First, I was surprised to see that folks have been making cotton gins for 2,000 years, with no hint in the article as to how Whitney's improvements seem to have made the key difference. I understand that the documentation from the first century CE may be a bit thin, but still, there ought to be some indication as to what the important improvements were. Second, in Whitney's patent, lacking any textual discussion, it is not at all clear how it works. The museum photo helps a little maybe, but both illustrations need some explanatory text to tell where and how the critical events occur. I see there has been a lot of editing since my rather harsh criticism, but unless I have missed it, mostly on the subject of the relation to slavery and like social/historical issues. Somehow the naive reader (such as me; coming out of California's south Central Valley I have at least separated a boll or two by hand, and seen people in the fields hand-picking back in the mid-50s) ought to come out of the article with some clarity about the problems involving seeds and fibers and the bolls' covering, that Whitney's gin addressed successfully, in a way that seems to have revolutionized the industry. The patent illustration at least should have some text in the accompanying caption explaining where the raw bolls are put in, exactly where and how the actual separation occurs, and where the seeds and separated fiber are collected. (? Are the boll-covering shells removed by hand first? Must be I guess, but they are brittle once the cotton is dried [nowadays I believe this is done by treating the field when it is green with some kind of chemical I think, then letting it dry out? But what about in 1790?] and tend to break into fragments I think, so that step must be tedious and delicate. Probably happened in the field, while picking?) It looks in the patent diagram like important things happen at two places, at least, but what those are, and how, is mysterious. The museum photo helps a little, but I think it does not correspond one-to-one to the patent image, and it still does not really make it obvious.

I confess I have only studied the article for a few minutes, but I was struck by how little clear explanation there was about the actual mechanical issues and how Whitney's improvements solved them. My impression is there has been little done about this since my (bad-tempered—apologies) rant. The social impacts are obviously of huge importance, but the central mystery of the "gin in itself" remains obscure, and almost unexplained. Wwheaton (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. So many articles on my list to work on! And this isn't my field, but the archaeology of it, I will try to find time to look into that. Thanks for the detailed explanation. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, me either obviously. I suspect experts in the technology are rare, all died a century ago. We do the best we can. Sorry to be a troublemaker. I'm a physicist myself. Several of the earlier contributors to the talk page at least seem to know something about cotton. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwheaton. Thanks for mentioning that on my talk page. To answer some of your questions, I believe that there are somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 asteroid articles on Wikipedia at the moment. I am uncertain of the exact number as I only created about a tenth of those asteroid articles. Most were created by User:ClueBot II before I came along and filled in some holes. Others have been created by different individuals over times. As for why I missed so many articles, that is because I used many different pages to get links for the asteroids. I initially used pages such as List of named minor planets (A-C), then went on to Meanings of minor planet names and later used List of asteroids. Sorry about any redlinks that I missed. I could go and create them, but I haven't done any asteroid article created for nearly a year partially due to the (apparently mistaken) belief that I had gotten all the named asteroids as well as the whole notability controversy on the astronomical objects wikiproject. I like the look of your table and think it is a good idea. One question that I have is if you intend to create the table to supplement the articles or to delete or merge the articles to the table. I would suggest keeping the articles and then having a table with minimal information to keep it neat with more specific information on the articles on the asteroids themselves. If you would like, I can go ahead and create the articles of the asteroid redlinks or if you would rather have me wait until the question of asteroid notability is solved, I understand that as well. Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding these new developments. Captain panda 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I almost blocked you per our policy of 'no celebrity names' - but hey, it is your name, so okay.

You're doing some damn good stuff; keep at it. DS (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wweaton, I was checking on a vandalism on article Omid and suddenly read your message to an IP user and I was overwhelmed. It is great to know people like you. By the way, I noticed that you are interested in Physics and space. There is a funny article about space that would like to send you if you are interested. I will email it to you. Have a great week. Kind regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting input on the Soddy articles. Your new finding was another good information link to have http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion

If you have not seen this very short video you may find it interesting. M. King Hubbert who I am sure you know of, made use of Soddy's work. Soddy did not take things a step further as Hubbert and friends did, but his work pointed in somewhat the same direction... Hubbert on peak oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page - Regards skip sievert (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do not know anything, actually, especially about economics, and especially about money or banking. I do have a slight understanding of thermodynamics and entropy, and have just begun to pay attention to Soddy's ideas, but I have to think about them, maybe for a long time. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't edit the Mass Driver page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.155.66 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your help me mesage on Mass Driver 1 page. I am not an expert wikipedian and I do not really know how to help, but I want you to know that I sympathise with you and I have a few general suggestions:

1. List the things that you think ought to be on the page, from your point of view. That has to be reconciled with what ought to be on the page from the point of view of us users. Our view should be paramount as wiki should be there to answer our questions, but then again, we do not neccesarily know what there is to be known, whereas you do.

2. List some sources of information that others could use. Even if they are obscure books, so long as you give proper references, it is up to us to look into them and decide what we want.

3. You are absolutely right that you should not write the page yourself, but provided you make it clear who you are, you are reasonably OK putting a few notes down and I support this.

4. I will jot down a list of things that I mgiht expect to see on this page too, to inspire others. Thanks for being there anyway. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was slightly involved (I designed the capacitive discharge circuits that powered the drive magnets), and have been hoping to get more info from some of the others, but without much luck. Kevin Fine took lots of pictures, Eric Drexler was around, Gerry O'Neill's book mentioned it in some of the later editions, and there are probably lots of design notes and details in his personal papers at the Space Studies Institute, and Henry's papers would also be a good place to look. The problem is human time: Gerry is dead, Henry is 85 or so, I am up to my neck in Spitzer Space Telescope stuff in Pasadena, etc, etc. I would like to see some details about the design: a good line drawing of the overall layout, a diagram of the "bucket", information on the drive coils (number of turns, inductance L, wire size (it was large Cu stuff the Magnet Lab had around, maybe 2x3 mm or so in cross section), the theoretical vs obtained performance, etc. This was practically the first thing I did for Wikipedia, and my memory is fading fast! I will put a copy of this on the article talk page, and maybe draw in some interest. Wwheaton (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I seem to be edging towards an edit war with an IP User:79.166.105.190 editor over that Georgios Giolvas edit you also reverted. Am I proceeding correctly? Any advice? Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My first piece of advice is to make sure you don't revert more than three times, or you'll be hit with WP:3R regardless of whether you're right or not. :-/ If he continues to revert, possible bring it up under 3R, or take it to the admin notice board? Or possibly the Reliable Sources Notice Board... I'm not really sure where is best, as my previous experience with official processes to sanction editors has lead me to conclude that they're a lot of talk and little else. But maybe I'm just a cynic. ;-) --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take due care about 3RR, this is as close as I've been, or ever expect to be. Maybe I'll try reason on his talk page before going to any of the WikiCops. I am right, I hope, that a web page in Greek is really not satisfactory as a source? No idea how credible the claim may be. Wwheaton (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's all going well. Cheers! --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill Wheaton. I see that you are a physicist and astronomer. You got my attention with your wikipedia page on particle accelerators. It was very well written. Accelerators are a recent interest of mine, as is particle physics as a whole. I was wondering if you could read a wikipedia entry that I have been working on and maybe make some constructive critisms. Here is the title of the article, and, I hope, the internal link for it: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. The article is about the book with that title. You might be familiar with it.

The intention of this project has turned out to be twofold. One is to give a summary of the chapters focusing through the lens of making this book and article interesting to the general reader. The second intention is to impart an understanding of particle physics based on this book. It is written by Leon Lederman who is a Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. Obviously this has not been his only accomplishment. He has been right there on the leading edge of particle physics.

I see also that you are a participant of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you could get some of your fellow members in WikiProject physics to look it over as well. It would be much appreciated.

Also I must add that it is not quite complete - but it is almost finished. However, now might be a good time for some feedback - I guess any feedback from physicist community on the article's talk page would be welcome. Thanks in advance. Hope to hear from you.

Ti-30X (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is probably three quarters done, not eally almost finished. I want to add more to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9. Ti-30X (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to end from begining, to preserve chrono ordering. Wwheaton (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wwheaton. You might not have realized this, but your this edit to Template:Welcomeh was undesirable for the template's true function. I've reverted the edit now. Please be careful in your future edits. Thanks. ^LeaveSleaves 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, I was unaware that I had edited it at all. I found a mangled welcomeh instance on a talk page, and tried to fix it, but must have edited the template page itself somehow. Sorry 'bout that. Wwheaton (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ww

I helps a bit...

Can you maybe introduce me to someone who spesializes in Electrical engineering (Power)?

Regards CJ--Kroucacj (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know if you had wanted to comment on my talk page when you had left a message, you said you would keep it watchlisted (I added a bit too) The snare (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I have been making sections on various characters from Malawi history and adding to them as I find out more -- a fascinating subject, for me, anyway, as I grew up in Nyasaland. There is surprisingly little material on Henry Chip, still less on Catherine. The best general source is Colin Baker, who has published a lot on the period -- a whole series of books which you can no doubt find referred to on the web. Among them is one on Henry Chip -- the "Missing Years". I was recently in Rhodes House, Oxford, doing some historical research, but all they have is one letter from Henry to his supporters.

There is actually a guy at Cal Tech in Pasadena who once wrote quite a lot on the subject -- Edwin Munger, who knew Chip's nemesis, Dr Banda. I e-mailed him a while ago asking to see some private papers apparently in his possession (I am nearby, in LA), but he didn't reply.

Sorry I can't really help on Catherine. I'm not aware of anything other than passing references to her existence, with no detail. Let me know, though, if I can help with anything else in the general subject area -- I have a reasonably good collection of assorted books and documents.

Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivercorlett (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wwheaton. You have new messages at Malinaccier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wwheaton. You have new messages at Malinaccier's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would suggest that you keep it as a subpage of your account, without categories, until it meets WP:N. Otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. Given the topic, you should be able to get two references from technical journals or news sources. I'll also add that the number of Google hits does not establish notability. Check out {{cite journal}} or {{cite new}} for including the formatted references. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See what I meant about the original research: [3]. Since there is no source, the info cannot be verified by others and very likely contains mistakes. Do we really need this? Offliner (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on dividing the article: it looks much better now.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, this matter has got messed up as far as I can see. What you did in July has been edited by myself to remove more duplication (though the length of the articles in itself makes changes more complex). After that the original editor Anments has reverted what I did and it is not possible for me to work on it again this week. His/her view is I suppose that it was an excellent piece of work so change makes it worse (I only guess that since I got no reply to a message). The article titles which only differ by "SS " need to be supplemented by hatnotes and an Infobox Ship on one and an Infobox Person on the other perhaps. What is on the Talk pages has stayed the may I did it but the articles have not. No hurry, and please don't feel an obligation.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everything you have done has meant clarity and coherence are much better and I am very grateful. I would have returned to it eventually but could not just now. There is an essay-like quality and perhaps three articles (1) clergyman (2) ship (3) early Christian missions in Nyasaland are possible that is more than I can undertake. I find it useful to wander off into unfamiliar subjects sometimes, otherwise editing can feel rather boring and onerous. I have even made slight contributions to the history of science e.g George Sarton and a few others. Thank you again.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last few days have been very busy on the this article: perhaps you could have a look.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page it says you are a physicts and a astronomer. Then just tell me that does supermassive black hole have a lower density? I have read on the article such thing. Please answer it on my talk page. --Extra999 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now understood. Thanks. --Extra999 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, Hope you are doing good? Thought you might like this. Take care ^Khukri 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, it was also in yesterday's NY Times. Thought it was hilarious, but the two authors seem to be reputable guys, so I better not laugh too loud. And I do believe that the universe will surprise us in almost every possible way, after all. Thanks for patrolling the LHC article this past year BTW. I am still slowly recovering from back operations in July 2008, and scrambling to catch up at work, so have to curb my impulses to pontificate on Wikipedia. I gather you guys are about ready to start circulating beam again—what a huge job that "incident" has been. Hope all the loopholes have been successfully closed, and good luck! Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alot of testing going on and the whole machine is now cooled down to within a couple of Kelvin of operating temperature. I've not seen any exact start up dates yet, but it will be within the next month and then hopefully it'll just be sit and watch it all go like clock work. First time it started up there was so much excitement, to be honest this time there is a palpable sense of nervousness. For a 6 billion dollar machine to start up the way it did the last time was damned near a miracle and for it to all come to an anti climax a week later was gutting. This time everyone is approaching it with a certain amount of realism, we want to bounce around the room but .......... anyways, watch this space. Take care ^Khukri 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got the year of birth from the Discover magazine blog, but I'm happy to wait for a more detailed reference. --Canley (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference for his full birth date from the New York Times. Also added an infobox and a public domain image, and his full name from his doctoral thesis. --Canley (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rodger Doxsey, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a portal named star and I need help from you for making it good. -- Extra999 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you suggest a helful user and is good in astronomy. -- Extra999 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]