User talk:Joke137/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!. Gravitodeathdeathrivercamscooper 02:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Nice to see your helping hand in Category:Cosmology. For some time most of the work of fighting back the weirdos, believers in already falsified theories and original researches did rest nearly on the shoulder of User:Joshuaschroeder alone.

It would be nice to setup a WikiProject Cosmology to better coordinate the articles and make some rough high level planning. In its current state, there is IMHO an imbalance between some lengthy and some very short articles. Some should be split and some merged. Also I'm not sure we are up to date with links to the observational cosmology articles. There are always contributors adding telescopes, experiments, surveys, etc. when they popup on a astronomy news site.

Pjacobi 22:04, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know what a WikiProject is, but it sounds like a great idea. It would be nice if the cosmology category could have a few long fixtures, like the dark energy, dark matter and large scale structure of the cosmos articles and a bunch of complementary, shorter, ancillary and potentially more technical articles. I feel like the major components are in place, but a lot of work needs to be done. I agree also that the observational side needs to be improved. --Joke137 22:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices. Related example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes. --Pjacobi 00:22, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

capitalization of Big Crunch and Big Rip[edit]

From Google, most references seem to use capitalization. This seems to be because the context is usually referring to a one-time hypothetical future event (the Big Crunch or the Big Rip) rather than a generic event (a big crunch in a hypothetical cyclical universe). I renamed the pages back accordingly.

If you disagree, we could propose a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves to gather consensus. -- Curps 20:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a big deal. I thought it was more consistent with the capitalization policy for article titles, but I'm not worried. --Joke137 21:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang[edit]

Thanks for the feedback! And here I was just about to tell you how nice it was that the reference section was no longer a disgrace. Of course, what's more important is that you and Joshua are confirming that I'm not introducing errors and correcting the ones I make, so I appreciate that. —JerryFriedman 19:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Cosmology Move.... Why?[edit]

Please explain why you moved the cosmology page? Dragons flight 00:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cosmology Edit Conflict[edit]

I just finished rewriting cosmology only to find that you had been doing the same and produced an edit conflict. I am going to post my version, so that it can be in the history, and we can work at reconciling the two. Dragons flight 20:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, great. --Joke137 20:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I really liked your additions. I just stuck them on the front of what I have added. Although a number of small alterations probably need to be made, I'm actually pretty happy with the straightforward merge, as it seems our additions were in different, complementary directions. --Joke137 20:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

alpha beta gamma[edit]

I clearly recall discussing this chestnut with Ralph Alpher, who is apparently still alive [1] and could be reached if so, but the article I cite says in part:

"Gamow and Alpher should have been the only authors on the official paper announcing the result, but Gamow decided to invite the physicist Hans Bethe to become a third co-author. This resulted in authorship by Alpher, Bethe and Gamow, which was a pun on the Greek letters alpha, beta and gamma."

Remember, a lot of cross-sections were not known or poorly known in those days, so they may have asked Bethe for help with those. I will send an e-mail to Ed Salpeter (with whom I have published) to see if he remembers. Pdn 02:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

well I see Ned Wright's page says: "A later paper by Alpher, Bethe & Gamow describing the hot Big Bang is one of the classic jokes in physics: Gamow added Bethe's name to this paper just to make it sound like alpha, beta, gamma. Bethe actually didn't do any work on it." so maybe I will recant. Let's wait till I hear from Ed Salpeter. (I hope) Pdn 02:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have rec'd no reply from Ed Salpeter so I e-mailed Alpher - let's allow a few days. Peter Pdn 17:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having no replies, I called Alpher in Florida and he does not recall Bethe doing any work on the paper. So I will fix it back (later - must go out now) (OK if you fix it back) SOrry. He recommended I called Hans Bethe, but he died March 5, so we'll go with Alpher (I would not have bothered Bethe anyway) Pdn 18:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just heard from Ed Salpeter again and he refers to Gamow's article in "Perspectives in Modern Physics ",ed.Marshak,1966. Gamow's account supports the popular one, and as Ed S. was not involved, I should not have cited his guesswork. So please ignore any previous comments - there is no "delta" to the Alpha Beta Gamma story. Pdn 01:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liouville's theorem (Hamiltonian)[edit]

The cleanup tag on this is probably not unjustified, but a more constructive set of criticisms from someone with a clear idea of coherence might help Linuxlad 21:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, await your edits with interest - but don't for Heavens' sake try to sell it as just a trivial consequence of symplectic geometry :-) Bob

Well, it's not exactly pellucid to a mere failed radio-astronomer, (too notationally heavy IMHO) but I'll read it again tomorrow. Linuxlad 23:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pdn 02:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dark matter[edit]

Could you take a look at the last several edits to dark matter? They seem to be coming from well-intentioned editors with an incomplete understanding of the subject (see:Talk:dark matter), and in my opinion the changes need to be reverted and section clarified, but I don't really have the time right now to adequately address the issue. Dragons flight 18:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I did what I could to make this all clear. I'm sure it could still use a lot of polishing. Joke137 20:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Dragons flight 02:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology[edit]

I'm not exactly a physicist, so I'm wondering how much work this article needs: Plasma cosmology. Decius 00:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think it needs a lot of work. I don't think it makes it very clear what exactly Alfvén is proposing, or what the objections are. It also looks like a page that is very hard to edit, because any attempt to clean it up is most likely to offend someone and be reverted.

There are a number of things on the page that don't belong there. I had never heard about the Velikhovsky stuff, and it probably should be moved. The plasma cosmology is serious science. I happen to think that it is discredited science, but it is at least possible to cogently list its merits and objections. Likewise, Arp doesn't really have a place on the page because his ideas about non-standard cosmology are different. The plasma cosmology ought to be presented as a coherent whole and not mixed together randomly with other ideas from non-standard cosmology.

It seems to me that the biggest objection to plasma cosmology – other than the clear, quantitative successes of the relatively simple although somewhat ad-hoc Lambda-CDM model in understanding structure formation, CMB anisotropy and primordial element abundances (among others) – is that the plasma cosmology is not consistent with the cosmological principle that we should live nowhere special in the universe. For example, X-ray backgrounds and the CMB are both isotropic to a few percent or better. If the observable universe were due to a plasma explosion of the type Alfvén has hypothesized, that would mean that the explosion is both very nearly isotropic (which is hard to imagine for colliding regions of matter and antimatter) and that we live at the very center of the explosion. –Joke137 19:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No doubt, the page needs some attention from people working in cosmology. I first read of plasma cosmology back in '94 or thereabouts, and since then I've occasionally checked up on the theory. I personally don't accept it or reject it, since I'm not familiar enough with physics and cosmology to recognize all its problems. An interesting 'concomitant' of the theory is the idea that the red-shift of distant galaxies is not in fact caused by the doppler effect. Thanks very much for taking a look at the article. Decius 21:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We musnt confuse Alfvens model of the Universe as being the whole of plasma cosmology however. Alfven was simply one of the pioneers, and indeed some of his ideas have been rejected even from within plasma cosmology. The plasma cosmology page is inconsistent entirely because of years old battles with BB proponents over the contents of the page. It was impossible to correctly portray the field without constant interruptions and disclaimers being made by BB props, so most of us simply stopped working on the page. I will monitor any changes made to it. thanks. Also, need to point out that Plasma Cosmology is NOT a coherent whole yet, it is in its infancy and indeed requires the mixing of ideas from other parts of non-standard cosmology in order to portray certain relationships between all the data. A long long time ago the article was in far better shape than currently, until BB props started removing information and making subpages so that the whole thing turned into a jumbled mess with no clear picture of why information X is pointing to information Y. This was all back in late 2003. --Ionized


see you on Talk:Lambda-CDM model :) Boud 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Electric Universe[edit]

On behalf of the people with actual scientific education, I would like to thank you for participating in the Electric Universe model VFD. DS 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)



Since you claim to be a cosmologist, could you peek at my comment Talk:Universe#Contradiction? Thanks, --R.Koot 23:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Hindenburg[edit]


In regards to your concerns about the Paul von Hindenburg article, I based my conclusions upon John Wheeler-Bennett's biography, Hindenburg the Wooden Titan and Andreas Dorplan's biography Hindenburg and Weimar Republic. Perhaps my comments needed to re-edited to sound a little less POV, but what I wrote is absolutely true. I glad you liked the article, but it needs to be expanded somewhat. There is a book by Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham called Nazism 1919-1945 - V.1 - The Rise to Power 1919-1934 - A Documentary Reader, which is a collection of primary documents translated into English. This book has a quote from a meeting about Hindenburg and Hitler in August 1932 where Hindenburg tells Hitler that he can't in good conscience appoint him Chancellor out of concerns over what Hitler might do if achived power. Less then six months later, in January 1933, Hindenburg still had his misgrivings about Hitler, but appointed him Chancellor bascially because everyone round him was telling him to take that step. All of Hindenburg's friends like Franz von Papen were telling him just to appoint Hitler and being happy. Hindenburg, being the weak-willed and stupid old man that he was, finally gave in and appointed Hitler even through he thought Hitler was a very evil man. I just need to go to the library so I copy the quote, the book, page number, etc, etc. I haven't quite gotten arould to it yet, but I will.

Anyhow, my point is that Hindenburg had a choice between giving and not giving Hitler the Chancellorship, and he didn't have the strenght to do the right thing. I hope to bring this out in a NPOV point of way. This is my own opinion, but most historians would probably argree with it. William Shakespeare once said that some men are born great, some become great and some have greatness thrust upon them. Most historians would say that Hindenburg belongs in the last category. The real problem with Hindenburg was that he looked like a hero, and most people throught he was the real McCloy, but as Wheeler-Bennett put it, Hindenburg was a wooden titan. He was a stupid, small-minded and spineless man who let himself be used by kamarilla around him. Anyhow, I should stop wasting your time. Cheers! A.S. Brown 03:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for your response. I have tried to edit the article a little to address my concern, but feel free to alter it if you would like to do things differently. I was trying for the ideal of WP:AWT. In any case, if the article stays in such good shape as it is expanded, it will eventually be an impressive article indeed. –Joke137 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for improving the article. And thanks for discussing the matter with me first. After dealing with some of the other people around here, it so nice to deal with someone who wants to have a civilized discussion and avoids name-calling and personal attacks. Cheers! A.S. Brown 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Black holes[edit]

Joke -

Why do I dislike black holes? Simply put, they seem to me to represent relativity biting its own tail. To wit:

  1. Space and time exchange coordinate axes with the event horizon.
  2. The singularity, to which the mass-energy of the star gets concentrated in the Riessner-Nordstrõm black holes, must propogate through coordinate time is a spacelike fashion.
  3. The Newtonian potentials within a black hole and with respect to a distant observer are less than −c2/2.

All in all, a passage through the event horizon is eerily similar to breaking the lightspeed barrier of special relativity.

So. Should GR be acting like that? To me the answer is kind of "yes" and "no". On the one hand, Kruscal and his successors have shown that this is a theorem of GR. So Einstein's GR admits black holes, and that is simply that. Yet at the same time, I have heard that Einstein felt that a good theory should not behave that way (which he used as a proff that GR does not admit black holes). I have chosen to agree with the anti-black-hole Einstein, but the price that I pay is that I cannot entirely accept GR as-is. My overall feelings are summed up fairly well in general_relativity#Status, even though that is intended to reflect the overall feelings of the field itself. (Then again, I wrote it.)

So what do I think the candidate black holes are? Something along the gravastar line: a gravitationally collapsed object that has not fallen inside its own event horizon.

You may also be interested to know that I have been working on an alternative to Einstein's GR that builds on it but brings my own biases on the issue (no black holes and gravitational length contraction) into play. It is called Flat Background General Relativity. Feel free to take a look at it if you like. Note that I am trying to get it published. It is in a state where it does merit peer-review (which I feel safe in saying because it was peer-reviewed last year), and I am hoping at some point to actually attain publication.

So hopefully you see why I am interested in GR but hate black holes. It actually creates a problem for me since my goal here is to document Einstein's GR as it is and not as I want it to be. I am constantly having in certain cases to check myself and be sure that I am reporting on the facts as the field sees them as opposed to how I see them or want them to be seen. That is part of what went wrong with the equivalence principle and why I eventually went back to it one last time to clear out what I came to realize was junk of my own making. That is also why the new GR page is very sparse of discussing black holes, with my only mentioning the most salient facts and referencing the Wikipedia article on the topic. --EMS | Talk 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really thought much about black holes recently, but doesn't the interchange of time and space coordinates disappear in the Kruskal metric (i.e. isn't it a property of the Schwarzschild solution)?

I haven't had much time to look at your paper yet, unfortunately. From reading the introduction, and some parts, am I right to say that what you're doing is leaving the Einstein-Hilbert part of the action alone, but having the non-gravitational part of the action couple to some kind of "flat" projection of the metric? Is the procedure for generating this metric coordinate independent? What do you mean by "flat" -- Ricci flat (Rμν = 0 or vanishing scalar curvature R = 0)? –Joke137 18:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Notification of request for arbitration[edit]

In response to your repeated selective removal of facts, your false biased POV statements, and clear lack of desire for objectivity or thorough information, committed in the physical cosmology section of the article cosmology, I have created a request for arbitration. Go ahead and make your statement on the arbitration page, not that it will make any difference. Your deceptions that I have pointed out are plain to see in the cosmology article history, and the only way that the arbitrators will side with you is if they too have blind faith in the big bang belief, as well as the dominant temperament to suppress any facts that indicate otherwise. -

  • note to Anon user above: it appears that indeed arbitrators have blind faith in the Big Bang, as evidenced by the debate over removing its Featured status. Not sure how your little battle is going, but I can state with certainty that in the case of Big Bang featured status removal, arbitrators are NOT looking at the past talk pages and all of the gathered evidence from the articles history. Its getting votes to keep from random people with no backup to their vote, and complete ignorance to facts presented. It is absolutely absurd. --Ionized 17:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ladder Paradox[edit]

Hello - There is a two-person discussion going on at Ladder paradox and we cannot seem to resolve it. We are very much in need of a tie-breaker who understands special relativity as applied to these paradoxes. If you have time to help out it would be appreciated. PAR 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject GTR[edit]

Hi, some of us are in the early stages of forming a project to improve Category:General relativity related categories. I see User:Mpatel mentioned your name as someone who has recently made useful contributions in this area. In case you might be interested in joining the project, I wanted to let you know that I am garnering comment on the draft of the future project pages at User:Hillman/Wikiproject_GTR_draft. Sometime in the next week or so we will probably publically announce the project.---CH (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Geodesic Deviation[edit]

Hello. I have seen some of your contributions before and have a sense that you understand GR. A back-and-forth has developed between User_talk:Ems57fcva and me about whether and how geodesic deviation can be used to explain falling objects in the Earth's gravity field. Perhaps you could look at our respective talk pages and the sandbox page: User talk:Mpatel/sandbox/General relativity and comment. I do not insist on my original discussion being in there, but I feel that Ems57fcva needs to understand geodesic deviation before he edits much more of the GR article. Thanks Pdn 05:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Standard convention on geometric units?[edit]

Hi, just saw (or maybe just processed for first time) your comment. Can you revisit this page and clarify? Alarmed---CH (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and obtain the textbook by Wald, General Relativity, and reconcile what you are saying with his Appendix F? Can you give a textbook citation which uses either of the two conventions you mention? TIA ---CH (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OwenX's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. Owen× 22:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, can you see the talk page for a request I made re your recent change? Also, please be careful in future edits not the break up the flow of the existing writing. TIA---CH (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Cool idea Reddi! Can I get this one, plus one each for quantum mechanics, special relativity, general relativity and evolution theory? --Pjacobi 22:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

It is clear that User:Reddi will not engage me. I have started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks for your help. --Joshuaschroeder 18:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and Big bang[edit]

Thanks for your comments. It is important to understand that although a user editing this article may have his own POV, this does not make his edits de-facto POV. It is impossible for anyone to have a neutral point of view on a subject unless they know nothing about the subject. Rather, editors with competing POV's can do great work in creating neutral articles by collaborating to ensure that all perspectives are advanced factually and neutrally. Although this user appears to have a strong POV of his own, I can find no evidence that his edits could not be made to improve the article if they were met more cooperatively by the opposing side.

As my userpage says, I am going on a Wikibreak for Thanksgiving starting in about five minutes, so I apologise if I do not reply further. Also, in the future this sort of commentary should go on the talk page of the relevant RFC. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


I have decided to stop editing for the time being. Basically, I'm tired of arguing on the internet, and feel like there are more productive outlets for my energy. –Joke137 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. I was on sabbatical for four months after the Harmonics Theory fiasco. The desire to contribute eventually came back, but you'll notice that I still stayed out of the Big Bang dispute. I just hope that the RfCs and RfA produce some form of useful resolution.--Christopher Thomas 16:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Joke137. Sorry to hear the POV-pushers have gotten you down. Take a wikibreak and please come back when you're feeling up to it again. There are other people here who can help tend the articles getting hit by the pseudoscientists. I do not have the background to help as directly as you do, but I'll do what I can! Take it easy... HorsePunchKid 2005-10-23 21:10:27Z

POVs, Wikipedia and understanding[edit]

Thanks for your email. In my experience, the best articles are those in which editors with conflicting POVs find a way to work together. The give-and-take process can be extremely tedious and frustrating, or very pleasurable, depending on the participating editor's attitudes. Time and patience are also important factors that sometimes we forget in our passionate exchanges about articles that are controversial. Without taking sides, I would encourage you and other editors to take some time off of editing and engaging in discussions on the talk pages of cosmology articles. Edit other articles, start a new one, offer your help at the Reference desk, etc. Come back in a month of two. Let others contribute, and you may be pleasantly surprised. Sometimes new editors are reluctant to participate when they see such unruly behavior, long-winded and heated debates, and so many reverts in an article. As in many aspects of human interaction, you cannot expect other people to change, but you can ... and when you do, it is quite remarkable to see the impression that causes on others...≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 17:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd offer to try to produce a version of Big Bang that addresses both sides' concerns, but at present I don't think it'll do any good. User:Elerner has already declared that his version of the article is the only one which he will accept, and User:Reddi appears to have an irreconcilable difference with other editors over how to judge the amount of scientific support for plasma cosmology, which according to WP:NPOV determines the degree to which Big Bang and Ultimate fate of the universe should discuss it. These points were both made clear during the RFC. Without admin backing, I don't think any other version will be accepted by these two editors. --Christopher Thomas 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

arXiv template[edit]

You asked on my talk page:

I think your template is brilliant. One suggestion: to make it quicker to use, perhaps it could be set up to work as follows { { arXiv | hep-th/1234567 } } ? Why is the redundant archive = and id = notation necessary? –Joke137 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea of using a template for links to external sites like this is to future-proof the linking. If arXiv decided to change the format of their URLs, we can simply alter a single template and every link which uses that template changes to suit. The reason for explicitly separating out the archive and id components is to allow them to be combined together any way we like. Another reason is that it would, at a later date, be possible to search all uses of the template for links to a particular archive. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Now that my RfA is fully and officially completed, I want to thank you for your support. I appreciate your confidence that I can do the job. -- SCZenz 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I've bumped into several of your edits recently. I thought that I should invite you over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and especially the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics; I don't think I've seen you there before. linas 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to add myself. –Joke 15:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

History of the 2.7 K Temperature[edit]

I'm interested as to why this article is irrelevant, when it applies to those people who feature in the article?

--Iantresman 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I agree it is an interesting article. But it belongs in the cosmic microwave background article. It is very tangentially related to the work of all these people! The links from biographical articles should be articles directly about the subject, not articles that merely mention the subject. –Joke 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA[edit]

Thanks, Joke 137, for supporting my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awolf002 RfA[edit]

Bellis perennis white (aka).jpg

Thank you very much for your support for my RfA. I will do everything I can to justify your trust in me. Awolf002 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...[edit]


Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. Your claim that you've never seen better responses in an RFA before was particularly encouraging. I'm humbled by the compliment, and hope to always live up to your expectations.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Vacuum Fluctuations[edit]

As part of the Casimir Effect dispute you mention that the positive Zero point energy of harmonic oscillators is a more 'concrete' explanation of the Casimir Effect. What do you mean by that? Virtual particles are not observable, but it seems that they give a more concrete explanation about what the vacuum energy is. In contrast, the reasoning from the uncertainty principle seems very abstract.

It is not reasoning from the uncertainty principle. In quantum electrodynamics, you write the electromagnetic field as a sum of oscillators of different frequencies. These were the harmonic oscillators that were mentioned. Each has a vacuum energy. This energy depends on the boundary conditions. The Feynman diagram picture is more picturesque, but thinking about it as the ground state fluctuations of a second quantized field is probably more correct, since the virtual particles are just useful calculating tools: they cannot be observed, and do not propagate on shell. –Joke 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by the velocity of empty space, let alone a non-zero velocity? Reasoning from a speculative energy-time uncertainty principle seems similarly mystical. A nonfluctuating zero energy means perfect precision and thus infinite time uncertainty. It seems like that would have us conclude that we don't know when the vacuum is constant.

The abstract nature of these principles seems like less of an explanation of this phenomena and more like the mere statement of a more general phenomena. While it is often fine to reason about specific situations from general principles, in this case it doesn't seem that it produces an effective explanation. Also, it seems like it would be difficult to adapt a wave-based explanation of the general uncertainty principle to the specific case of vacuum energy. What would be meant by 'a precise measurement of the frequency of the vacuum cannot be done simultaneously with a precise measurement of the vacuum's position? -- Intangir 22:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can be concretely calculated. It takes some formalism to do so, though, which is why these statements seem vague. The essential idea is that uncertainty relations prevent you from saying that "there is no excitation of the vacuum with frequency omega" just like for a harmonic oscillator in its ground state you cannot say "it is at precisely x = 0 and has vanishing momentum." –Joke 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also a seperate but related question. While we can compute a vacuum energy with externally legless Feynman diagrams, it seems that without interaction with real particles we wouldn't observe these entirely virtual events. It seems to me that there would be no observable predictions which would receive contributions from legless diagrams. In short, Feynman-style QED seems to suggest that 'vacuum energy' is instead just another prediction about the nature of particle interactions. I think what is calculated is something like restrictions on the allowed loop contributions between the plates. It suppose that this could be interpreted as interactions with the fleeting loop 'universes' which are intrinsic to the vacuum- a measureable vacuum energy. But, it also seems that this could be interpreted as an aspect of the plates interaction. The two different interpretations might say different things about whether 'vacuum energy' gravitates. -- Intangir 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the reason you get a different answer between the plates is that the Green function for computing Feynman diagrams has different boundary conditions than in free space. So you should get a different result for the vacuum energy. –Joke 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the response. -- Intangir 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

History of science wikiproject[edit]

Please consider joining the History of Science WikiProject.--ragesoss 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dog breeds by country[edit]

Regarding your comment on List of dog breeds by country, "...someone should try to make this page more complete..." You're doing a fine job, "someone"!  ;-) Thanks. Elf | Talk 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I don't know too much about dogs, but I know a little about breeds, and I'm sick of editing cosmology articles so I thought I'd spend some time making improvements in a less controversial area! –Joke 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I periodically get involved in the whole kitchenware realm... So if you want noncontroversial, stay away from the dog-fighting breeds pages. :-) I'm sure you've also figured out that you can determine each breed's supposed country from its breed page, but there's also a summary (cheat sheet for working from) here. Elf | Talk 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? Dragons flight 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a couple of days to think this over. I'm flattered you thought of me. Sure, if you honestly think I'm a good candidate, I'm willing to give the RFA-roast a shot. –Joke 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've gotten the ball started at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joke137. You'll need to answer the questions and add it to the WP:RFA queue according to the instructions there. I can't guarantee your roast will be a success, but I certainly do believe you deserve recognition for the work you do, and have the potential to be a good admin. Dragons flight 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

VSL expert editing.[edit]

say, thanks for noticing that the VSL article needs some expert attention. the article was created by an electrical engineer who was/is a firm believer in VSL. i am also an electrical engineer, and do not pretend to understand the deep cosmological arguments or math used thereof by the proponents, but i do understand the issue of our ability to measure dimensionful quantities vs. dimensionless quantities (essentially what Michael Duff has said in refutation of VSL) and had debated the article originator a little on that issue when he started the article. i looked at the reference you added, and it appears pretty good. r b-j 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to try to take a look at it in the next few days. –Joke 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Self Creation Cosmology[edit]

Hi Joke! And thank you for your welcome.

The page "Self Creation Cosmology ", and a section in "Non-standard cosmology" that I have contributed has been tagged: "This article may contain original research or unverified claims" and indeed I, as the contributor, am the originator of the theory, yet all the work mentioned has been published in refereed journals, and developed in over 50 other author citations.

My understanding of the policy on "Original Research" is that is does not apply in this case. Garthbarber

Hi Garth, you're correct that the NOR policy does not apply in this case. Still, it would be best to have a disinterested editor go over these pages. –Joke 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the tag from the "Self Creation Cosmology" page, may the tag also be removed from the section on the "Non-standard cosmology" page as well?Garthbarber

Hi, it was actually William M. Connolley who removed the tag, after I consulted with him. I just removed it from the non-standard cosmology page. –Joke 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I really don't know how it got translated. I've been reading it and, leaving aside my poor knowledge of physics and its vocabulary, it seems to be a correct translation - no automatic or machine translation at any rate.

I only translated the category thingy, and the article was created/translated by an anonymous IP, so I do not know if any message will get to them, given the ubiquity of the dynamic IP system in Spain.


--Seanver 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

What can I say but, "Welcome back!" I know I'm sometimes something of a black sheep in the Wikipedia community, and I'm not sure if you appreciate me or not, but let me just say I'm glad for your contributions. Sorry about the changes to the cosmology page, but I tried to explain my edits there. Let me know whenever I can help (even if that means you want me to stay away from a page -- I'm willing to do that for you). --ScienceApologist 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back yourself. I'm not sure if I'd call you a black sheep, but you certainly have more patience and energy for science editing controversies than anybody else involved with the project! I've certainly reached the point where I want nothing to do with the interminable debates on redshift and tired light: I've been trying to edit other articles, but I find I'm drawn back to the cosmology pages because there is so much work to be done and so few experts participating. I'm not particular either way about the cosmology page, I just reverted because there seemed to be a consensus on talk. I originally wrote it that way because, I figure, there are about a hundred pages on Wikipedia devoted the physical cosmology, so we don't really need to emphasize that aspect of things. –Joke 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky FAC[edit]

Joke, I made a lot of changes to the article and left some comments on the FAC page. Thanks for your feedback! RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OH my GOSH, he has MOP! And I am partially to blame! Ack! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an admin!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, congratulations and good luck--MONGO 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. —Ruud 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations :) Quarl (talk) 2006-02-07 19:53Z
Congratulations Joke! And don't worry about my criticism, even aside from the small little problem you deserve this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, you're very welcome and good luck! If you ever get stuck don't hesitate to ask. Steve block talk 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace...[edit]

If you are looking for areas in the Wikipedia namesapce (not AfD), you could always check out featured pictures. We are always looking for outside opinion on the images. Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, and congrats. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, might I add that you should probably create some kind of user page. Anything really. Admins should be welcoming to new users and a user page is one great way to show your welcomeness (no idea if that's a real word). Of course it is up to you, but even a few words would be nice. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the featured pictures. That was fun – I'll try to keep an eye on these in the future. As for the user page, after a year of not editing it, I'm not sure I'm ready to rashly go and put something there. Of course, this being a wiki, other users are welcome to edit it...Joke 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Put that at the top of your user page in some form ("I need a User Page. Please help by editing this page!") or somesuch, along with any specifics - friendly, useful, etc - that you want to see, and I guarantee you'll get a nice UserPage in almost no time. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, belatedly. Thanks. –Joke 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

I am just afraid that the candidates with less proven history are more likely to burn out, lose it, or make bad mistakes. You may, probably, will do none of those...but given what has been going on here lately, you know what I mean. We are letting to many unproven users be admins. Likely you will be a good one, especially with your civil comment on my oppose vote, but I just like to be certain. If you were here a little longer and such, I would have voted support. You know more about yourself than I do...I'll I've got is a bunch diffs :). Happy editing!Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have received your message. Best wish for your adminship, but having something useful in your user page will be much better.--Jusjih 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Why not put a nice picture of a doggy, or a monkey, or something. In all seriousness, congratulations - I'm sure you'll make a great administrator as you build up experience. Proto||type 09:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology page[edit]

Hey Joke137, it would appear that for the moment, you and I seem to care the most about our desire to present physical and metaphysical cosmology fairly and in their own light, so hopefully we can work together on this to find a solution that will benefit all WP readers. See my comments on the Cosmology Talk page. Cheers, C.Melton 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2[edit]

This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committee has imposed the following remedies:

  1. Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
  2. Reddi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. Each ban shall be recorded together with the reason at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. A notice shall be placed on the talk page of the article and Reddi shall be notified.
  3. Any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban or probation in one year increments. Any extension shall be documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Violations of the remedies imposed on Reddi shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are automatically recorded at Reddi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) but should also be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committe, --Ryan Delaney talk 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Empty Nest[edit]

Hi Joke, I am working on the Talk page to rebute the deletion request. Thanks for your quick moves (of course I hope they were too quick). FredrickS (UTC)


So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t|c 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)