Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miscellaneous desk
< March 28 << Feb | March | Apr >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


March 29

[edit]

Boomerang blocks

[edit]

Are there any statistical analyses determining how many filings on WP:ANI result in boomerang blocks or action against the filer?--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help searching page history

[edit]

Some years ago I remember reading an article regarding a European scientist working on the theory of gravity around the same time as Newton. His hypothesis was disproven but I really want to review it. I can't, however, remember much about it other then the phrase "undulating line". I would have seen it from a link from either the gravity page or Newton page but when searching the history for this phrase I keep getting lots of irrelevant results. How can I crawl these pages that link from my initial guess for this phrase? FiveBs (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find something useful in Mechanical explanations of gravitation? Maybe Descartes' vortex theory? --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Descartes was my immediate thought on reading this question. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have been thinking of Robert Hooke, who took issue with Newton? Hegel also disagreed with Newton, but that was later. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Gravity is a myth. The Earth just plain sucks." StuRat (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
This book may be helpful:[1] 86.169.56.176 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier studied gravity at the same time. His work was popularized by Le Sage and has been "reinvented" many times since then. I personally use his theory of kinetic gravity to mess with physicists who know just enough to think they know everything. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Audrey Hepburn Saved By Jesus?

[edit]
request for mystical speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please have your reference people tell me if Audrey Hepburn was saved by Jesus? I believe she had to be!!! She loved Jesus supremely when she deliberately asked to play a nun in A Nun's Story,Audrey was friends with this nun in real life.Audrey bwas a Protestant Christian she had to go to Protestant churches in Brussels, Belgium as a child;and accepted the gospel message of being saved by Christ!!! Also,Audrey raised her son's as Protestant Christians;and had both of son's baptised in the Protestant Christian faith. So,please confirm to myself that our Audrey was saved by Jesus,as certain Christian organizations have told me that indeed our Audrey was saved by Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:9171:846A:525F:3A2A:27EB:333 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saved from what? CodeTalker (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christian theology is broadly in agreement that the true nature of one's salvation is a matter of standing between that individual and God, and that an outward profession is not in itself sufficient. As such, there are likely no reliable sources available that speak to the true inward nature of Hepburn's relationship with God. As you suggest, our article on Audrey Hepburn notes in passing that she had at least one of her children baptized (the article is suggestive of infant baptism), which is circumstantial evidence that she outwardly practiced some version of the Christian faith. adherents.com lists various sources noting that she was a Christian Scientist, or perhaps not a Christian Scientist, or broadly Protestant, or perhaps Calvinist, or maybe Episcopalian, or perhaps not claiming any specific religious affiliation. Notably, these are almost all competing, rather than complementary, claims, which reinforces the idea that we do not know. — Lomn 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]