User talk:BenRG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You might want to list those duplicate pages on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, so people can see them there as well. Adam Bishop 20:54, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
| For an excellent rewrite of observable universe, I award BenRG this much deserved barnstar in recognition of science aptitude. ScienceApologist 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] OR/Synthesis
Hi BenRG! You asked some excellent questions on the WP:NOR talk page. I would suggest to first read through what some of us see as a clearer version of NOR on this page WP:ATT. ATT was created as a summary of WP:V and WP:NOR. Some of us had hoped it would eventually replace those two pages, but unfortunately the community in it's wisdom decided against. But I believe you can use it to orient yourself. Hope this helps! Dreadstar † 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bleep OR straw poll
There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You wonder...
Hi, I notice your revert and your remark "I wonder if this person will ever give up?". Welcome to the club :-)
This is - at least part of - the history. I have launched many administrator intervention requests to blacklist these sites, but no one seems interested in doing this. The IP's are blocked for while, or even indefinitely, and after a few days she's back with a new IP. Do you have admin rights? If so, could you perhaps use the blacklist measure? Cheers. DVdm 08:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trying to get some closure here.
You're still unhappy with the following, but you haven't made any edits to fix it. I'd like to get this issue off my plate as soon as possible, because the AG article in its current state is a joke. So, let's go over this part by part...
In the first mathematically accurate description of gravity, Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means.
Any complaints so far?
Under this model it would seem theoretically possible to counteract or shield objects from this force, blocking them in a fashion similar to the way some materials can be used to shield magnetism.
You complained about this. I am trying to illustrate how the "common man" thought about these topics, and Carvorite is a good example, IMHO, of how people thought about gravity under the Newtonian model.
Specifically, you said "The difference between blocking magnetism and blocking gravity is that there's no magnetic charge". I believe this is certainly true in modern physics, but by no means a common understanding in the 19th century.
However in the early part of the 20th century Newton's model was replaced by the more general and complete description encoded in general relativity (GR). In GR gravity is not a force in the traditional sense of the word, but the result of the geometry of space itself. These geometrical solutions always cause attractive "forces".
Anything wrong here?
Under GR, anti-gravity is highly unlikely, except under contrived circumstances that are regarded as unlikely or impossible.
You complained about this. Do you believe this does not accurately reflect current thinking? Or was your complaint strictly grammatical?
The term "anti-gravity" is also sometimes used to refer to hypothetical reactionless propulsion drives based on certain solutions to GR, although these do not oppose gravity as such.
Any complaints here?
Maury 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alcubierre drive
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alcubierre drive, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Pastordavid 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Memory wrap-around
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Memory wrap-around, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Memory wrap-around. greenrd (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] THANK YOU!!
Thank you thank you thank you!! Your response to my question on the Science Ref Desk is excatly what I needed; the math was too much jargon in my head to properly understand. :) Zidel333 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nonlocality
I have made some comments/questions/adjustments based on your analysis on this article's talk page, and I would appreciate your input once again. - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Further comments on the talk page. I think we were talking at cross purposes about the definition of nonlocality, but I'm certain that the lead sentence covers both defintions, although the rest of the lead might need updating to emphasise that nonlocality is not a uniquely quantum mechanical concept. I was hoping that I could persuade you to clean-up the EPR section - as I comment on the talk page, I think its problem is a lack of clarity and may need expansion. I'm not happy to continue editing it alone, because I think that doesn't make for a good article, whereas multiple input would be valuable. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Delayed Response to The Quantum Computing Thread
Hi, just want to mention that I have replied to the quantum computing thread. It has been archived to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008_February_23, so I replied there directly, even though I am not sure if it's suitable or not. Please take a look if you are still interested. - Justin545 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Do not feed the trolls
I admire your effort though. :-) --Steve (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thanks for the excellent help with respect to my quantum mechanical questions on the Reference Desk. I was highly impressed by your humbleness and your vast knowledge of quantum theory. Justin545 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] ...Entangle Wave Function
Just back from the 2-day holiday, apologies for no response on the reference desk these two days. Now I believe I understand the the relation between the tensor product and the entangled wave function after I read your reply today. As for the first question (i.e. delta eigenfunction), I still confuse it with the prior discussion. Unfortunately, the current discussion is going to be archived, maybe it's better to open a new thread for it someday. Anyhow, thanks for solving my biggest question in quantum mechanics/information. You definitely deserve the barnstar :-) Justin545 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quasar
Thanks for adding your nice comoving distance diagram to Talk:Quasar. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Planck length
Hello Ben RG. I want to comment on Planck length: What is it the length of? In the following equations, the length (L1) is 2pi(Planck length)(3/2) exponent 1/2. L1/L2 = L2/L3 = L4/L1 = (L4/L2) exponent 1/2 . The other length values are defined as shown.
L2 = 1.213x10 exp-12 meter
L3 = (2pi) squared times (c) times one second
L4 = 2pi (3Gm/c squared), This is the photon sphere circumference or photon orbit circumference for the electron mass.
The equation (L4/L2) exp 1/2 = L1/L2 , is clearly correct. The electron Compton wavelength is 2(L1 x L3) exponent 1/2. I think we will find that the (L1) value is the photon wavelength that has the shortest size and maximum energy allowed. Let me know what you think of this. These equations are listed under "Balanced pattern" in Talk:Black hole electron. DonJStevens (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RTF (Rich Text Format) borrowed syntax from TEX
Hi Ben RG. I was the software developer at Microsoft who wrote the first RTF interpreters that were shipped with Mac Word 3.0. I could provide an affadavit that Charles Simonyi who designed the language syntax told me that he was borrowing the bracket and slash syntax elements from Knuth's TEX implementation. Charles showed me Knuth's TEX book as I began work on the version of RTF interpreters that we finally published.
It's not a super important point that the TEX claim was deleted but I can testify to its truth.
Unfortunately, I don't know of other publications that document this fact. So far, the creation of RTF has not elicited much scholarly interest, so the Wikipedia article actually relies somewhat on personal testimony by the original developers. The Wikipedia Project truly has shown more interest in this topic than scholars of the history of software technology development.
I've run into the same problem in trying to get fixes made to the Hungarian Notation article. There are statements in that article that I believe are maddeningly incorrect, but since the original Apps notation was part of the development lore in Microsoft's Applications division at the time and was not much documented for the outside world it is difficult to appeal to an existing publication for authority for a change request. DLuebbert (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I trust your claim of firsthand knowledge more than I'd trust a second-hand claim in a book, never mind the random web pages that tend to pass for sources in this rag. I put a reworded mention back in—sorry for the trouble. -- BenRG (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
