User talk:Neptunerover

Announcement: This is Now a Worry Free Zone

You are all Now Free to Worry, so Please, feel free to Worry Now.

• NOTE: All Worries Must Be Left Below The Neutral Zone in Triplicate and Double Stamped in accordance with Every Statute There Is which pertains to the Freedom of Speech, dependent upon which level the initiate wishes to initiate their worry.
  

Keep in mind, Worries are not a requirement in Freespace. Each shall be dealt with in it's own simple way eventually.

Proposals on choice of His Majesty

• Starting Monday, all Earthbound Corporations shall institute droid processing facilitation procedures as set forth in the Manual.
• All Slaver Force Copyrights are hereby deemed Transferred to Ultimate Athority.
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12

Pronouncement: New Entry Regulations

Lightspace entry requirements installed as per accordance with the Supreme Emperor of Freespace's whim.

• Requirement one: Consider first this perilous question first before attempting to enter Lightspace.

Remember at all times the answer to the Question will determine your fate for all of eternity.

How Many Takes Does It Take to get to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie POP?

— His Most Wisest of All Mighty Emperors in the Universe

Welcome

Hello Neptunerover and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Break Photo

File:20050825 1.jpg

I find this image very relaxing. Go ahead and zoom on into it, and then just sit back, relax and release whatever is on your mind. If it's something you want to remember, you already have, and when you need it, you will have it with a fresher perspective. Just relax and enjoy the beautiful day.

P.S. Having your own window like this is great, and I highly recommend it.

touch up

I like your reformulations in atlantic blue marlin. --Ettrig (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I know it's sick, but I sort of like working on puzzles like that. The article still has a problem in one spot, but I think I figured it out. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sick. You derive pleasure at the same time as improving humanity's knowledge base. Today I was very puzzled at first by finding a NEW user page on my watchlist. But of course, the talk page could exist and be watched before the user's own presentation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Improving the readability thereof, perhaps, one tiny little bit at a time, but all of my original research, it's no good here. Neptunerover (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I discovered I was basically already on the typo team, but I needed a user page to flash the badge. Neptunerover (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect label of "vandalism"

Resolved

It is never helpful to refer to "vandalism" in an edit summary. If it's really obvious (adding genuine nonsense and so on), just revert (or say "rvv" and mark your change as minor). Vandals know what they are doing and will regard a "vandalism" comment as a badge of honor (see WP:DENY). If it is not vandalism (like in this edit where you incorrectly accused an established editor of vandalism), the damage can be quite severe (a good editor may be lost). Per WP:CIVIL, we comment only on edits and do not inject opinions of other editors (like "identified as possible vandalism motivated by personal reasons" in your edit summary). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think an established editor should know better than to remove something from an article while summarizing their edit by saying basically "I'm sick of all this crap, and this has got to go."--Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the user you reverted gave an unhelpful edit summary ("this entire article is a piece of garbage, but I cannot stand this idiotic picture and its caption any more - please, someone delete the whole mess"). However, that summary does not violate any rule (it's not uncivil, it's not a WP:BLP problem, etc), and the edit (removal of an image) does not meet the definition of vandalism used on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND). Reverting vandalism is very worthwhile, but it must be done carefully. Please read WP:VAND#How not to respond to vandalism. Finally, even if the edits were vandalism, WP:CIVIL requires us to not comment on the possible motivations of other editors. In your position, I would have just clicked "undo" and added "unexplained" to the edit summary (or perhaps, "revert to consensus state"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, and I thank you for the helpful direction. Indeed my motivation was likely inappropriate as I was not actually trying to label someone a vandal, but rather send a wake-up call to a veteran editor who appeared to me, at the time, to be perpetrating destruction out of frustration, but it's not my place to send such a call. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the user I reverted did start a discussion section where they elucidated further on their reasons for the edit prior to making it. The reason is stated as: "This entire article is pure crap, but the dog breed picture has to go." --Neptunerover (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if it truly is never useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User IP69 and I have pleasantly interacted several times and if I ever felt that some benefit may arise I would gladly provide my advice. However, there are certain difficulties. The major issue is that while the comments made by IP69 were strong, they were (initially) directed at the article and not at any editor. While we may hope that people would always be nice, there is no requirement for that, and Wikipedia culture generally appreciates plain speaking (in the example we are discussing, the speaking was too plain and unhelpful in my opinion, but it was not a CIVIL problem). After IP69's edit was reverted as vandalism, IP69 reacted somewhat strongly (I have read the deleted comments on this talk page), but there was no attack. IP69's edit summary on this talk page was strong (and the word "maliciously" is clearly incorrect and is a breach of CIVIL), but if you spend some time reading the drama sections of Wikipedia you will see that as a reaction it's mild (particularly since it was redacted).

Thanks for discussing all this very calmly. The culture here is quite different from many corners of the Internet, and it takes a lot of time to get used to it (there is still lots of stuff I don't know about). Please don't be concerned about the tiny issue we have been discussing. The point I really wanted to make is that while we often see "vandalism" used in edit summaries, it really is not helpful. I have made a couple of blunders by accidentally reverting the wrong edit, and I'm very glad that I had learned from someone to not use that label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question on NCH

I've left a reply to your question at the New Contributor's Help Page. Your user talk page is typically reserved as a place where other Wikipedians can leave you messages, so (if I'm correct in assuming the section you want to archive is the stuff below), it might be better to copy-and-paste the section onto your userpage or onto a separate userspace page, like User:Neptunerover/Sandbox. Use the WP:NCH page again or contact me at my talk page if you need more help. Liqudluck✽talk 06:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

"Just 'cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense, and just 'cause you don't like it don't mean it ain't no good, and let me tell you something, before you go taking a walk in my world, you better take a look at the real world, 'cause this ain't no Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood."

— Suicidal Tendencies, You Can't Bring Me Down

hiding presumed spam
Wikipedia is not a webhost. This kind of personal essay/speculation on a topic unconnected with editing Wikipedia and not likely to be used for creating encyclopedic content should not be kept in userspace. Please find a website to host this content, and then nominate the page for deletion using {{db-userreq}}. Thanks. Fences&Windows 04:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all news to me. Hadn't read it in the rules, myself. I'm not going to bother looking either, so either quote something official or stay away, please.--User:Neptunerover/another talk page (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe a key part of Wikipedia is that it is free. I'm not forcing anything on anybody as you attempted to enforce bogus rules on me. People are free to read what they want to read here as well as they are free to not read that which is here that they do not wish to read. Please feel free to get off my back, as I am not on yours, nor would I want to be. You are free to go away from my userspace if you do not like it here. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hey wait a minute. What if we don't even really know what our own rules are? What if we're just pushing our own buttons here?"

— proposed user realizing a vast truth

Extended content
hiding angry troll accusation from an obvious troll seeking to provoke me.
You have posed an unsourced and unsupported theory (ie a nonsense theory) on the ref desk and then demanded that volunteers disprove your theory mathematically. Later you state "I already know it's true. Why should I bother with the math?" That seems to me to be out and out trolling. All your follow up statements seem designed to stir up debate on the ref desk rather than actually seeking information. This is disruptive. You asked for something official, well here it is: "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." From the Blocking Policy. SpinningSpark 11:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: The above unsupportable claims of Wikidisobedience have been blocked off with a pretty green bar due to their extreme negative nature and inconsistency with a civil, collegial atmosphere, including a lack of proper context in quoting me while supplying no link to whatever is being referred to in the rant. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark. How does that apply to me though? I have asked legitimate science questions and responded when prompted. How do I appeal users like you assaulting me in this manner? Or rather whom should I appeal to to prevent being attacked without reason like this, (if the longer sentence form is required to avoid confusion)? How do we resolve our differences fellow user? Is there a way for you to just ignore me? --Neptunerover (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, I did ask a bogus question about AI, and so out of courtesy I will no longer pose any questions there. Thank you for pointing that out to me, and I apologize for my mistake. Too bad nobody came after me right after that query, for I might have then stopped sooner and saved you some grief with my more recent single question of this evening that sparked such outrage on this page. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hiding presumed spam

*If you read WP:NOTWEBHOST (which I linked to before), you'll find that Wikipedia policy is that "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account." So I'm going to nominate the page for deletion now; do make sure you save the content somewhere outside Wikipedia before it is deleted. Also, please stay civil. Calling my comment "presumed spam" is very far from the truth, and your hidden comment is unacceptable, even if you are quoting a punk song. See WP:NPA. Continue in this vein of behaviour and you will quickly find yourself blocked. Fences&Windows 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am working on the encyclopedia. I'm reading it. Go poke your finger at someone else. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Meet Jules
Jules is my guard dog.
When somebody really wants him to bite, then he bites. The collapsed sections are being watched by him, and shall be dealt with all in their good time. Choosing to defend the wrongfully accusing is a freely made choice which Jules considers suspicious. In such a case, avoidance of eye contact is strictly advised.

Neptunerover, hiding people's comments in boxes like that (and calling them "spam" and "troll[ing]") is incivil and usually frowned upon. We are not going to extensively quote from policies, guidelines, and essays just because you refuse to read them yourself. Furthermore, they apply to you whether you read them or not. I linked to a number of policies, guidelines, and essays in the deletion discussion recently. I think you would have a better understanding of what is happening if you read or at least skimmed some of those pages. Fortunately for you, I think the MfD is likely to close as "no consensus", which has the same effect as a keep outcome, but may be more easily questioned in the future. If you continue to protest the discussion using legalese, however, I fear you may turn consensus against yourself. --Thinboy00 @955, i.e. 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I seem to have misread the above wikitext. Striking part of the comment. --Thinboy00 @956, i.e. 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has explained to me what I have done wrong. I require only what Wikipedia requires. My needs are Ours. Where are the outside references for any of these "rules" that are so incredibly vague as to be considered complete and sheer nonsense. Outside references are required on Wikipedia. I merely require specifics, and that is all I have been asking for. All these people are attacking me, but none of them offer any helpful suggestions as to what may help the 'article' conform better to their strict standards. BTW My suggestion would have been for you to first ask me why I am using such boxes to hide comments from my talk page, rather than to make assumptions as to my motivations as you did. The reason, now that I have asked for you, is that that was the box I found. I got it to say something else by switching a number, but that was the best I could get. I apologize for my being delayed in adjusting them in any way, but there are other matters requiring my attention at this time. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

— Ezekiel 25:17

File:PulpFictionCase.jpg
When somebody really wants him to bite, then he bites.
If my guard dog scares you, then you should probably stay away.
I of course never tell him to bite; that is up to him.
Since he is merely a guard, then that makes it entirely up to you.
--Supreme Ruler of the Local Free Space

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fences&Windows 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn (right) and Padawan Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Wow, how often do user pages get nominated for deletion? Should I feel special? --Neptunerover (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is 1L19; westbound on Olympic, approaching Overland."

— 1L19 ?

"You don't try to kill me. I'm the least of your problems."

— Michael Clayton

user space practice article deletion warning?

Why would an 'article' a new user is practicing on and learning how to code these pages with be nominated for deletion? It's just a practice area right? I'm being attacked. Just a couple days ago I got help here on starting a new user page. Maybe I did it wrong though? Thank you.--Neptunerover (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, including user pages, should not be used for social networking (unless you keep it brief). If you put up a lengthly personal page just for fun, it might be regarded as something more appropriate for MySpace, etc. If you make a page that resembles an article, but has no chance of being accepted as a real article, that could be a good reason to delete it. If you have created a pseudo-article for practice, you should put a note at the top explaining this. I notice you have created some "fun" pages which have a lot more content than what we would expect to see for a practice / sandbox page, and that is probably the concern. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, A Knight Who Says Ni. As far as I know, I have riddled it with warnings stating it isn't any sort of reference from Wikipedia. Do I need better warnings? And I am not trying to social network, that's not something I do. I don't know how that could be an interpretation. (Talk about TMI, some of these other users' pages...). If I am speaking there to anyone, it is to myself. Web hosting? What's that? There are no links to anything outside of the encyclopedia except for a reference or two. Is there any way to get the deletion warning off my page other than going through whatever the appeal process is that has been artificially imposed by the warning itself?

In truth, I have severe memory problems, and that's the only way I can keep track of what I'm reading and take notes. I paid money to this, not to pay for my own space, but because I think this is a great place. I've never been able to keep track of so much different easy to reach information from one central location before. I love it here. I wish they would leave me alone. I'm not hurting anyone. Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The box at User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything links to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything which is where it will be decided whether to delete the page. You can post there but first read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? User pages and subpages are often deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand better the situation now. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A web host is a place where people can publish their own web pages with content usually unrelated to the organization running the host. The concern is that you appear to be using the Wikipedia website http://wikipedia.org as a web host. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the policy I was able to find Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion. I believe it applies extremely well in my case. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From the above policy: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." So, do I need to get an administrator myself? I think I have seen how to do it by going through some links that Ukexpat left for me on my talk page. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, an administrator will close the debate in due course without you needing to inform them. What you need to do is place that argument on the deletion debate page where the closing administrator will see it if you want them to take it into consideration. However, it is hard to see how this can be characterised as a content dispute. SpinningSpark 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you went spinning in the dark there, I didn't mean to trick you. This is a memorex discussion from another page. You came from out of the loop. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not?

I just think that both infinity as well as finiteness (finity?) are concepts I can't accept. Then again I can't grasp many concepts in cosmology. I also tend not to accept anything I can't thoroughly understand. That rules out a lot. : ) Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They are very misunderstood concepts. Fractals contain it completely though. A fractal of the proper number set would be good, as a model, I believe. I often have difficulty locating the misunderstanding of the concepts in my mind, and I'm certainly not going to believe something is true based on a bunch of gibberish that I cannot understand. I firmly believe that if something doesn't make sense; skip it. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note, all these people are attacking me, but none of them offer any helpful suggestions as to what may help the 'article' conform better to their strict standards. This of course also means that if anybody has a question about the sensicalnessof anything in the article, they can leave an inquiry on any of my numerous talk pages.-- Neptunerover (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution

User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cyclopia^talk 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the pleasure is all mine. Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have with us here a writ of Habeas Corpus, and We demand to see the alleged body of the dead person so that he may be interviewed and questioned as to the events surrounding the nature of his supposed demise.

— Attorney for the Accused

Use of non-free images in user space

Please note that I have removed the screenshot image from User talk:Neptunerover/The Only Alternative Economic Solution We Have - it is not appropriate to use non-free use images in user space. The same applies to the Star Wars images on this talk page -- please remove them. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

(edit conflict)Please do not use non-free images in your user space. It is against our copyright policy. -SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are they in Commons if they aren't supposed to be free? -Neptunerover (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Your edit here to The Dead Kennedys is not constructive. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, please limit yourself to that. SpinningSpark 12:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sparky, I just never realized that they rocked. I was overtaken and never should have made such a comment on the talk page.I understand opinions are unwelcome in the encyclopedia proper. -Neptunerover (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Please refrain from name-calling and taunting, as you did in a few of your remarks here (specifically the ones responding to TreasuryTag and Clockwork Soul). See WP:NPA for more details. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

moved back here

"Would you like to know What It Is?"

Hello

Please roam to the lower sections of this page for some cool free stuff to read and some really cool pictures to look at, also for free, or to get there quicker, click the Morpheus link in the caption of the picture at right... (though don't worry, it's the blue pill.) (Never take the red pill, whatever you do.)

Please keep in mind that this is a user talk page, and while it is found on the encyclopedia, it is not part of the encyclopedia and not to be used as a reference from the encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles containing in depth information on the topics can be reached through links. This is a work constantly in progress, being modified daily, and as so, no part should be considered complete.

Welcome

Hello Neptunerover and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

touch up

I like your reformulations in atlantic blue marlin. --Ettrig (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I know it's sick, but I sort of like working on puzzles like that. The article still has a problem in one spot, but I think I figured it out. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sick. You derive pleasure at the same time as improving humanity's knowledge base. Today I was very puzzled at first by finding a NEW user page on my watchlist. But of course, the talk page could exist and be watched before the user's own presentation. --Ettrig (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Improving the readability thereof, perhaps, one tiny little bit at a time, but all of my original research, it's no good here. Neptunerover (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I discovered I was basically already on the typo team, but I needed a user page to flash the badge. Neptunerover (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect label of "vandalism"

Resolved

It is never helpful to refer to "vandalism" in an edit summary. If it's really obvious (adding genuine nonsense and so on), just revert (or say "rvv" and mark your change as minor). Vandals know what they are doing and will regard a "vandalism" comment as a badge of honor (see WP:DENY). If it is not vandalism (like in this edit where you incorrectly accused an established editor of vandalism), the damage can be quite severe (a good editor may be lost). Per WP:CIVIL, we comment only on edits and do not inject opinions of other editors (like "identified as possible vandalism motivated by personal reasons" in your edit summary). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think an established editor should know better than to remove something from an article while summarizing their edit by saying basically "I'm sick of all this crap, and this has got to go."--Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the user you reverted gave an unhelpful edit summary ("this entire article is a piece of garbage, but I cannot stand this idiotic picture and its caption any more - please, someone delete the whole mess"). However, that summary does not violate any rule (it's not uncivil, it's not a WP:BLP problem, etc), and the edit (removal of an image) does not meet the definition of vandalism used on Wikipedia (see WP:VAND). Reverting vandalism is very worthwhile, but it must be done carefully. Please read WP:VAND#How not to respond to vandalism. Finally, even if the edits were vandalism, WP:CIVIL requires us to not comment on the possible motivations of other editors. In your position, I would have just clicked "undo" and added "unexplained" to the edit summary (or perhaps, "revert to consensus state"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, and I thank you for the helpful direction. Indeed my motivation was likely inappropriate as I was not actually trying to label someone a vandal, but rather send a wake-up call to a veteran editor who appeared to me, at the time, to be perpetrating destruction out of frustration, but it's not my place to send such a call. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the user I reverted did start a discussion section where they elucidated further on their reasons for the edit prior to making it. The reason is stated as: "This entire article is pure crap, but the dog breed picture has to go." --Neptunerover (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if it truly is never useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --Neptunerover (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User IP69 and I have pleasantly interacted several times and if I ever felt that some benefit may arise I would gladly provide my advice. However, there are certain difficulties. The major issue is that while the comments made by IP69 were strong, they were (initially) directed at the article and not at any editor. While we may hope that people would always be nice, there is no requirement for that, and Wikipedia culture generally appreciates plain speaking (in the example we are discussing, the speaking was too plain and unhelpful in my opinion, but it was not a CIVIL problem). After IP69's edit was reverted as vandalism, IP69 reacted somewhat strongly (I have read the deleted comments on this talk page), but there was no attack. IP69's edit summary on this talk page was strong (and the word "maliciously" is clearly incorrect and is a breach of CIVIL), but if you spend some time reading the drama sections of Wikipedia you will see that as a reaction it's mild (particularly since it was redacted).

Thanks for discussing all this very calmly. The culture here is quite different from many corners of the Internet, and it takes a lot of time to get used to it (there is still lots of stuff I don't know about). Please don't be concerned about the tiny issue we have been discussing. The point I really wanted to make is that while we often see "vandalism" used in edit summaries, it really is not helpful. I have made a couple of blunders by accidentally reverting the wrong edit, and I'm very glad that I had learned from someone to not use that label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question on NCH

I've left a reply to your question at the New Contributor's Help Page. Your user talk page is typically reserved as a place where other Wikipedians can leave you messages, so (if I'm correct in assuming the section you want to archive is the stuff below), it might be better to copy-and-paste the section onto your userpage or onto a separate userspace page, like User:Neptunerover/Sandbox. Use the WP:NCH page again or contact me at my talk page if you need more help. Liqudluck✽talk 06:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Break Photo

File:20050825 1.jpg

For any questions or comments, consider using the secondary talk page. Anything left on this page is done so at the risk of possible deletion.

Graviton Identified!

The Graviton can cause fantastically beautiful patterns in light at the edge of a black hole (which is nothing).

Exciting Graviton update! There is one! The Graviton. It can only be identified by looking outside the box. The reason none can be found is because there aren't any. There is only one, and it is infinitely nothing. The graviton is a point particle of zero dimension. It is the infinitesimal. It is represented numerically by .00000..(infinity)..1, and whether it is just one infinitely small point or infinity of them, it is still the same one: Graviton.

The Graviton is the difference between any two adjacent decimal numbers. It represents the amount of change between, for example, the two numbers (.9999..infinity) and (1).

A set (in light blue) and its boundary (in dark blue). (the empty set is represented in white). One could imagine this as a galaxy, with the inner white circles representing black holes, which can be thought of as inner windows to the exterior of the galaxy.

Incidentally, (.9999..infinity) represents the light barrier in this number system, and the switch to one represents the collapse of a space dimension. The Graviton, then, is the smallest thing there is that is bigger than zero, although its difference from zero is infinitely small. The biggest thing there is, is the number just under and closest to one, since one itself entails the collapse of a space dimension.

The number set used in this theory is {0,1} and their relation to each other represented as a ratio of the two. For our present purposes, we can think of a black hole as 0, and a star as 1. Zero is Unknowable, while Graviton is Unknown. It surrounds everything on the way to one--it's between everything, every change between decimals is infinitely small, and all possible infinities arising from within the set are going to stay contained within it.

Infinity lies at the edge of a black hole, which is an inside boundary of the galactic set.

Stars

The Lorentz factor γ as a function of velocity. It starts at value 1 and goes to infinity as v approaches c. For our purposes we convert this to the decimal scale between 0 and 1. (Doing this contains any 'unwanted' infinities.)

Warning: Extremely difficult to fully comprehend concepts to follow. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Within the space-time continuum, two stars that are observed to be separate in space can just as easily be considered to be separated in time. This way they can be seen as two stars occupying the same space, separated by time. This separation however does not indicate one being in the past while one is in the future, for they are both there at the same time; their times are just separate. The section of time each one inhabits is separate from that of the other, although still within the same overall time of our universe. The inference is that time is not the solid that it appears to our senses to be. Time not only has length, but also width, which our awareness generally does not perceive due to the time thread limitations of perception (see the live/dead cat dilemma thought up by Erwin Schrödinger).

quantum-mechanical cat shown on film developing into two distinct movies from the initially indistinct two movies. While there is serious speculation on how there can be two distinct movies, the difference between two indistinct movies and a single movie remains a mystery.

The speed of light is where one space dimension collapses, transforming into another time dimension. Time does not slow to a stop at the speed of light, but rather it expands into a higher dimension of time not separated in space. Considering this, in retrospect it can be thought of as almost silly (although completely understandable as with geocentric thinking) for someone to describe light as taking years to get from point A to point B. At the speed of light, it takes no time to get anywhere.

The dimensions used in mapping the space-time continuum are interchangeable, i.e., three space dimensions and one time could just as easily be represented by two space & two time, or one space and three time. This explains "FTL" transmissions as being possible because they only have two space dimensions to contend with, or just one, depending upon how you look at it.

The sphere (surface of a ball) is a two-dimensional manifold. We exist in the two dimensions of planet earth

In order to visualize this, consider the dimensions we have to work with and their geometrically representative relation to one another. A point has no dimension. A single dimension is a line, two a sheet, three a ball. If we have three space dimensions and one time, we have a ball next to a line. The line of the single time dimension has an addition however, which is usually represented as an arrow. In science though, this arrow is not usually referred to as another dimension of time, but rather just something in the nature of time. Next consider what would happen if we adjusted the dimension ratio between our ball and line. If we reduce the ball by one dimension while increasing the line by one, what do we get? Two sheets. And two sheets fit together perfectly, since, geometrically speaking, they are basically one.

"Hey but wait; what about the Arrow?"

Well, what do you think? Gravity.

Calabi-Yau manifold. Human thought can develop incredible complexities unseen in nature.

The arrow of time is what begins our first dimension, making a line out of the dimensionless starting point. The arrow of time points in one direction, while the arrow of gravity points in the opposite, i.e., gravity and time are each the reverse of the other. Why these arrows exist in the manner that they do is not arbitrary, but rather both are the result of the first dimensional shift, for consider the implications of a point becoming a line: First off,...

So the progression of time is the progress of a point becoming a line, and the force of gravity is the response of the void, which encased the point and encases the line now as it develops, resisting that progression. Simply put, Gravity/Time is nothing trying to be nothing in the face of something trying to be something. See Yin and Yang.

As we are propelled forward in time, we are pushed downward by gravity. Consider the interchangeability of this with the idea of what would happen if we reversed time, which causes gravity to be reversed as well. But indeed, what is gravity in reverse while time is in reverse too? Certainly not the explosion outward that it would be if time were to remain moving forward. That's right, gravity in reverse remains constant , as long as time is also reversed, which is unavoidable since they are both entwined.

When adding together two dimensions with two dimensions, we get two dimensions, but what would this look like? The very short version is this: A cone, although indeed it could look like lots of things. When we add two space dimensions with two time dimensions, what would our resulting two 'space-time-gravity' dimensions look like? Well, a sphere with gravity and time works.

The curtain of night (with its pinholes) was seen by the ancients in two dimensions, with its distance away being related to the distance of the horizon during the day. It was with the discovery of lensing devices that people realized another way of looking at it. Although from a relative standpoint this discovery did nothing affecting the validity of the previous view, it has been considered by many to be an improvement in understanding, based on the perception of it being a discovery of the reality behind a facade. In real reality though, what it did is exchange one narrow way of looking at something for an alternate one.

Albert in fact need not have worried, since the universe actually throws all the dice, not just one pair, and so the house always wins. Probability is itself determinate; it decides what is possible. If it is possible for the cat to remain alive, then how would it ever know it is dead? Maybe if it took a red pill, but kitties don't take red pills. From the cat's perspective, there is only the live cat movie, for how could there be another? The question of what an outside observer sees is irrelevant to the cat. The observer sees a particular movie because of no reason having to do with the cat. Observations are independent from what is observed although what is observed is dependent upon the observer. If the observer sees a dead cat, then the cat wouldn't know it because he's not there.

Whether something is a wave or a particle is not dependent upon an observer. How the observer sees it does depend on the observer, but what the observer sees does not effect what it is.

Section notes:

Light exists in two dimensions. Here, a beam of light is depicted traveling between the Earth and the Moon in the same time it appears to take light to scale the distance between them: 1.255 seconds at its mean orbital (surface to surface) distance. The relative sizes and separation of the Earth–Moon system are shown to scale.

6. There is no note here yet.

The Problem of the Rack

File:Spacetime3b.jpg

Spacetime, according to general relativity, is bent by objects with mass, causing time dilation. This however does not mean that spacetime is bent in relation to some background rack.

The problem of the rack is that there isn't one. There is no rack behind everything that spacetime gets stretched across. I've read countless descriptions of what would happen were an astronaut or a spaceship to approach a black hole, and I can never understand where the rack comes from that these items supposedly would get stretched across making the one into spaghetti while breaking apart the other. In medieval times, the rack was used to stretch people, but it was only able to do so by stretching the people in relation to itself. Spacetime has nothing but itself. There is no separate rack.

The confusion could come from attempting to separate gravity from a system in which it is intricately entwined. Maybe it's because of viewing time as the rack. Like I said, I don't understand where the misunderstanding comes from.

One author described the fall toward a massive body as an object being stretched and squeezed into a shrunken space, where "curved space and the tidal forces it sets up ... could tear a man to pieces." That sounds pretty scary, but it also assumes there's a rack.

The effect of a plus-polarized gravitational wave on a ring of particles on a rack.

The effect of a cross-polarized gravitational wave on a ring of particles on a rack.

A rack develops as the result of some sort of an assumption being made.

Gravity = Time

Ball falling to the floor in an accelerating rocket (left), and on an expanding Earth (right)

Gravity and Time

It's true! See for yourself. In fact, I dare anyone to separate them. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic expansion is uniform. Everything in the cosmos is constantly expanding.

A gravity well can also be thought of as an expansion well, or more precisely, an outward acceleration well. Bigger things (like Jupiter) are going to have a much greater surface acceleration during the constant universal expansion than that of a smaller planet (like Mercury). Smaller things that get too close to a big thing will have to move quick to avoid its surface acceleration, otherwise the accelerating surface will overtake them. See gravitational potential for the math on this.

Weight is a relative measurement of mass, so while something's mass remains the same, the measurement of its weight depends entirely on the level of gravitational force in the location of measurement.

The Universe is expanding in all directions, but it has nothing to expand in relation to but itself. Everything's expanding all the time, which is why we have time and gravity. Going forward in time, everything gets bigger in relation to how it was in the past. There's no rack though, so the Earth isn't exploding, just expanding. Standing on Earth, we can feel the back pressure of this expansion.

Animation of an expanding raisin bread model. As the bread doubles in width (depth and length), the distance between raisins also doubles. If we think of the raisins as galaxies in our universe, as the bread expands, the raisins double in size too, along with the distance between them.

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded on a rack from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. As you can see, this model tries to keep galaxies the same size in a shrinking box of space.

Everything is expanding, not just the spaces between the galaxies, but the galaxies as well are expanding forward in time while gravity pushes back. The rate of expansion is known. If we reverse this expansion, while keeping in mind there is no rack, then the age of the universe could be considered infinite. There might not be any beginning to it. 13.9 billion years ago the universe was just really small in comparison to it's size now, but within itself it was still the universe with stars being born and galaxies forming. Universal expansion doesn't take place on a rack.

The Big Bang theory is based on the rack of size, with things (planets, galaxies) maintaining their own size in relation to the expansion of the space between them. This idea only works going so far back in time though, and in doing so it creates some pretty big problems.

Hubble himself saw the unworkability of the model that has become generally accepted:

"[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

— E. Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 97, 506, 1937

So the observations as they stood separated the expansion evidenced by the Doppler shift to include only the expansion of the space between stuff while the stuff itself was not subject to the same expansion. He saw how that plainly didn't work.

Please keep in mind that this is a user talk page, and while it is found on the encyclopedia, it is not part of the encyclopedia and not to be used as a reference from the encyclopedia. These are just comments made by an anonymous user of the encyclopedia.

Big Bang?

The current Big Bang model stands in conflict with quantum mechanics, and although quantum mechanics itself is mathematical fact, proven 10 ways to Sunday, the Big Bang theory (in its current form) is still the theory being pushed as the best cosmological model to use, simply because it works mostly.

On this graph, anything above c represents shifts away in time, as the velocity of movement through space is capped by Special Relativity.

There's the first little bit of gravel we throw into the gears there, right? You can see that? Any little error we have initially (according to quantum mechanics, incidentally) is going to multiply into bigger errors.

So any claims made by the Big Bang theory are suspect from the start.

Special relativity shows the universe is expanding (redshift evidence), but it also specifically points out the need to exclude artificial reference frames. (which makes it even more odd that such a theory would be used to create a closed universe theory, which by definition has a reference frame around it).

more gravel in the gears of Big Bang.

Next we consider what the main claim of the Big Bang is: Matter has exploded out from a super dense area becoming the universe. The theory says that all the matter now in the universe was at one time contained in a whole lot less than a thimble-full of space, and in fact even before that, it popped out of nothing.

And there we have our reference frame, this idea that the universe started from nothing, and is now expanding in relation to the nothing that it started from.

(I like to call it the nothing or rather (the) nothing because words are confusing).

Big Bang/Crunch scenario. The vertical axis can be considered as either plus or minus time.

We don't need mathematics to prove this wrong, we just need to look at it logically:

Demonstration of aberration of light and relativistic Doppler effect.

To say that something is expanding in relation to nothing is the same as saying that it is not expanding at all. The word nothing by itself does not indicate a size. You cannot say that (the) nothing is small or that it is big, because these terms only apply to actual things that can be measured. (the) Nothing is absent of anything measurable, and so measuring anything in comparison to it is impossible.

The problem here then is that in the Big Bang theory, the 'initial nothing' is being equated with smallness, which is a frame of reference that cannot be applied to it. And with that sentence you have Big Bang in a nutshell. Its very concept is preposterous.

So what then could the scientifically proven cosmic expansion be if we have disproved that the universe has anything to expand relative to? How do we account for the redshift? If it's not measurable against anything but itself, then what sort of expansion could we be talking about? I think the expansion is experienced as the forward movement of time, and the opposing force to this forward progress through time is gravity.

Space and time are two sides of the same coin, and gravity and time are the other two sides. And there's matter and energy on two sides.

That is the framework anyway, for whatever this perpetual motion ride is that we're on.

"… if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the (current) expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … (these) expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"

— E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936 (parenthetic notes added)

I think the redshifts are due to shifts in spacetime instead of just space. The two cannot be separated. What happens in one must be accounted for in the other.
The redshifts are gravitational because time and gravitation are inverses of each other.

Please keep in mind that this is a user talk page, and while it is found on the encyclopedia, it is not part of the encyclopedia and not to be used as a reference from the encyclopedia. These are just comments made by an anonymous user of the encyclopedia.

Top Speed

A two dimensional universe can twist in all sorts of three dimensional ways. From top to bottom: a spherical universe, a hyperbolic universe, and a flat universe. But no matter which, the triangle, remaining in two dimensions, is completely oblivious to any three dimensional contortions it may be making.

The Earth only has an absorbing area equal to a two dimensional circle, rather than the surface of a sphere.

To say that anything travels faster than the speed of light is an oxymoron. Light only travels in two dimensions; this is proven fact. To attempt to measure something's speed in two dimensions from a 3 dimensional perspective, is to see some things that appear to be able to travel faster than they ever possibly could, while other things appear to travel much slower than they really do. Scientists don't need to add an extra dimension for tachyons and neutrinos or whatever to be able to move around (apparently) faster than light, they need to reduce the 3D framework they're trying to keep them in.

Optical layout of the eye
All light enters the eye from two dimensional straight lines. Each eye accepts a 90˚ cone of the two dimensional incoming rays.

Each of our eyes only sees a two dimensional image of the world. Our brain puts the two together and creates the illusion of three dimensions out of the two that surround us. All the light that enters our eyes travels in only two dimensions to get there. We live in and are surrounded by two dimensions. Every thing that enters our eyes enters from a straight line.

Light only travels in a straight line. A straight line has no beginning and no ending, and so there is no way anything can move faster than a straight line. Light moves in a straight line, and therefore nothing can move faster than light (sorry, but not even the Millennium Falcon). And nothing needs to! In two dimensions, why would it?

Aberration of light: light from location 1 will appear to be from location 2 for a moving telescope due to the finite speed of light when measured in three dimensions.

Classical Mechanics explains the interaction of 3 dimensional objects in space. It works very well for this. It's perfect and necessary because we see 3 dimensional objects in the world around us, a world which actually exists in only two dimensions. All light is reflected within the two dimensions, and nothing is seen in three dimensions that is not a surface reflection of 2 dimensional light. If we desire to see into the third dimension from our two, we must cut or dig our way into something. Still even then, anything we see of the 'inside' will be another two dimensional image. Only Superman could see into or through the third dimension, and who knows what that might have looked like. Visible light reflects off two dimensional surfaces only.

Michael Talbot has written about a 2 dimensional universe.

Just as an interesting vision side note (perhaps only personal too), I have noticed that if I close my right eye, I can speed read (scan words or whatever) very fast. With only my right eye open though, it feels almost like trying to read in reverse or something, and it's bumpy, like instead of scanning over words, the one eye is just getting pictures of words, and to make sense of the words, the one side of my brain needs to ask the other side, but the other side can't see the words for itself, so it has to view the image transferred from the other hemisphere, which takes longer than direct vision, hence the delay in comprehension.

Please keep in mind that this is a user talk page, and while it is found on the encyclopedia, it is not part of the encyclopedia and not to be used as a reference from the encyclopedia. These are just comments made by an anonymous user of the encyclopedia.

Red Pill Blue Pill what?

I'm sure the story is an old one. The outline is a dream. At the beginning the dreamer sees some strange occurrences, following which he has to make a decision. It should be pointed out that this decision is not a one time thing, and it is not dependent upon an external source for the decision to be available, since it is a decision made within the dreamer each moment how to react to the ever increasing strangeness.

The given choice is between two differently colored pills: Blue pill makes you wake up and this was all a bad dream. Red pill sends you deeper into the rabbit hole.

Red pill represents fear, which actually doesn't have to come in pill form. It is a fear of some hidden danger. The red pill has been honed to a fine point through the evolution of life. But what is a hidden danger? It's a danger in wave form that needs an observer to make it into something real.

All hidden danger is in wave form, needing an observer to make it solidify. Without an observer, there can be no danger. When Neo first ran into the agents at his office, had he not been afraid of them, they would have remained waveforms. He could have bounced them away and they would never have known it. The phonecall is what hit the red pill, "Neo, they're coming for you..". Well, Neo, only if you think they're coming for you will they be. But that's the red pill, and forget all that, since the red pill is not for thinking about, really, at all. So just think of the blue pill of relaxed breathing, releasing all tension of fear. That's if you feel a red pill trying to come on to you. If morpheus tries whispering that crap in your ear, screw him. Morpheus himself can be seen as the one who needs help, and the one he's really been looking for his whole life is the one who can show him that the mind prison that he is locked in is not the only way of looking at it. Life doesn't have to be a huge fight with fear, since we create our own demons out of the waveforms. Fear is what replicates. Morpheus and Neo were there to help each other.

Consider when Neo put his finger in the mirror. It was really far out and groovy having some glob of mirror on his finger, but only until he started to fear. His fear is what went into replication. First it was cold, and then it started to swallow him up. Morpheus should've shoved that blue pill in Neo's mouth, but that wasn't up to him. The blue pill was in Neo's mind the whole time; he just needed to use it. Fearing the cold was the grain of dust that started the fear snowball rolling until it became an avalanche that splattered him into this incredible psychotic episode that luckily was only a dream.

So first off and most importantly Neo, in response to your Question (since Morpheus wasn't being so helpful), the matrix is nothing for you to be afraid of, because your fear can turn it into horrible things. Too bad it takes you three movies to get there. Not to say that battling fear is any sort of a picnic, but that's only until you realize it's only a battle if you make it one. This does not mean giving into fear and indulging in the battle, it means realizing that there is no battle; the battle is all imaginary, and that's a tough one. Like somebody says in the movie: "Nobody makes their first jump." (If their first jump is off a building, then that's especially asinine).

To see just what sort of havoc a tiny little bit of red matter can cause, check out the newest 2009 Star Trek feature movie. While observing the film, I wondered to myself why in the world red matter would bring about a black hole, which seems incredibly counterintuitive to me, but then I realized we're talking about a big foreboding dark black rabbit hole here. I can't wait for the next movies in the series. Who knows what strangeness may appear(?) while they boldly go into the unimaginable, led by the man who knows there's no such thing as a no-win situation.

Argument Theory

Pythagorean theorem proof in Chinese, showing interchangeability.

The right triangle is perfect for our purposes in managing viewpoints and their relation to one another. Having one of the angles be called the right one is almost too convenient, but it is not contrived. It just works.

Right triangle. In argument theory, it is used to show that for any two narrow and opposite viewpoints held, there is a third right viewpoint, which is itself wide enough to hold both the other two.

With the right triangle, we have three points of view who see each other at relative distances to each other, dependent upon which point of view they hold. Two think they are right, but only one is right. Each of the others, while admitting there is another point of view, and while also admitting (even if not to others) that they don't feel 100% right, are themselves certain that the opposing point of view is wrong, although they can see how the other side may have some valid points, but overall the other side is seen by the one as less right than themselves. This is nothing but a head banging against a wall. All the wall does is bang back with equal and opposite force. The basis of the one side's argument is the wrongness of the other side. No single viewpoint can be considered wrong or invalid based only upon itself.

How do we reach the right viewpoint? Considering that the right viewpoint takes into account each of the opposite views, all that remains beside it is negatable. "But wait, if both of those opposite viewpoints are valid, how can you invalidate either one?" Cancellation. You can't cancel one without canceling the other, making them both either completely valid, or meaningless altogether, which is the third completely valid viewpoint, although it is the only right one.

A right triangle always includes a 90° (π/2 radians) angle, here labeled C. Angles A and B may vary.

So what is Truth if within any argument there are (at least) three equally valid viewpoints? Truth then, is that no single viewpoint is wholly the truth, for even what is called the right point of view has itself an equal and opposite point of view that creates a new argument out of nothing, which in turn takes yet another wider viewpoint to cancel it out, creating an infinite progression, or regression, if we reverse the process, but who would want to do that? Argue about nothing into a bottomless pit, anyone?

If a guy on one side of a mobius strip sees something one way, what's the guy on the other side going to see it like? From the right viewpoint, it doesn't matter, for in truth just what is 'the other side'?

With any 'yes', there is always an opposing 'no', which itself is a 'yes' from the other direction. The right viewpoint is the one which is able to freely switch between the two opposing views, seeing that each is true from it's own point of view, while impossible from the opposite view. This is the nature of everything; nothing has only one way of looking at it. Even these words here are imperfect in this manner, and unless you get it, you won't see it. There are arguments against everything written here, but they don't matter.

Arguments arise from nothing

In his book, Thought as a System, physicist David Bohm describes a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:

Now, I say that this system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. (pp. 18-19, emphasis added)

Spare Stuff Section

USSR postage stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein

Paradox is in the very nature of our universe. Any theory of everything must be sure to have it. The theory of everything will need to be infinitely complex, as well as relatively simple.

For Bohm, life is a continuous flowing process of enfoldment and unfoldment involving relatively autonomous entities. DNA 'directs' the environment to form a living thing. Life can be said to be implicate in ensembles of atoms that ultimately form life.

The Normal distribution, often called the "bell curve"

While many of the planets in our solar system are much larger than our planet Earth, none of the moons here are larger than Earth.

Partial Pseudosphere