Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2009-02-15T14:14:45Z

BrianW: /* The gravity question */

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== The gravity question ==

I just wanted to point out that this may not be a very good measure of open mindedness. 2 and 2.00001 are arbitrary numbers, yes, but that isn't why there is an inverse square relation ship. The square of the radius in this case comes from a derivation which is a direct result of geometry. That is to say, it isn't that the variable R was saddled with some arbitrarily accurate exponent, it specifically means that the equation holds that the value of R must be multiplied by itself. If I may use a thread of logic common at conservapedia, 1+1=2, not 2.0001. Likewise, r*r=r2 not r2.00001

Open mindedness is all well and good, but I feel this question overreaches a bit, considering the fact that this proportionality holds definitively that the exponent is exactly 2.

: Thanks for your comment, but your remarks serve to illustrate how this question exposes close-mindedness. Gravity is a physical phenomenon. It's observed, not derived. Many people are trained (by atheists) to think that physics ''must'' be a certain way, rather than observing with an open mind what it actually is. Those who insist that physics must conform to mathematical expectations are ... unjustifiably closed-minded.

: Open your mind and you'll never want to go back.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

:: Just to clarify, as the above user mentioned, the law of gravity is an inverse square law for a specific geometric reason. If you envision a gravitational field as a series of concentric spheres radiating outward from a body, you will see that as the surface areas of the spheres become progressively larger, the gravitational force must be spread over a greater area, and will therefore be weaker. The fact that the exponent is 2 comes from the fact that the surface area of a sphere varies with the square of the radius, not with the 2.00001th power of the radius.

:: I agree with you that observations do not always agree perfectly with theoretical models, but this is because the universe does not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Other forces (such as the gravitational fields from other planets) require that correction factors be introduced to adjust the result given by a physical equation. This does not mean the equation is wrong, only that it isn't complex enough to account for everything that is at work. Hope this helps. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: It does help ... illustrate your closed-mindedness. The "law of gravity" is a physical observation, not a postulate of Euclid. Only the closed-minded would insist that gravity cannot be inversely proportional to r2.00001. Open your mind and you'll agree. Don't and you won't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::The essay specifically says "Newtonian gravity", not "the law of gravity" (whatever that might be). In Newtonian gravity the force absolutely has to be inverse square; as was pointed out above it's a direct and simple consequence of the fact that the area of a sphere is proportional to radius squared. The same applies for other classical field theories, such as classical electromagnetism (eg, the Coulomb attraction between two point charges is inverse square). But "Newtonian gravity" is not the same thing as "the way gravity really works" - we have General Relativity after all, and doubtlessly other successful theories of gravity will be developed in future. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 07:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Your comment misses the point. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" illustrates that we're talking about the law of gravity as being in rough proportion to one over distance squared. If you insist that it must be ''precisely'' r-squared, as you seem to, then your mind is inexplicably closed. Open it, and your only regret will be that you didn't open it sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::No Andy, you're the only one missing anything here. The phrase "Newtonian gravity" means something very specific, which is a theoretical framework which leads directly to the consequence that force is inversely proportional to distance squared. Newton didn't just randomly pick 2 as the power because he felt like it; it is an immediate consequence of developing a classical field theory in a 3D space. By definition, if you had a law of gravity that isn't inverse-square (and you will note that I never claimed such a thing was impossible) then it isn't Newtonian gravity. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r2.00001? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2009-02-15T14:00:58Z

BrianW: /* The gravity question */

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2009-02-15T12:13:46Z

BrianW: /* The gravity question */

Talk:Sulu

2008-12-31T13:02:44Z

BrianW: /* Suggestion */

== Suggestion ==
With all respect to the original author, I am wondering if this page should be included into the existing Star Trek page? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 18:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: You don't explain why, so I'll assume that it's to avoid lots of small articles about individual characters?
: I don't agree with it being on the [[Star Trek]] page. Conservapedia wants concise articles, and the Star Trek article is already a fair size (in fact I think the religion section should be removed to a separate article).
: I support this article staying, but an alternative is to have a single article covering all the main characters ("Star Trek characters", "Characters of Star Trek"?) rather than separate articles for each.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:58, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::You surmised correctly, Philip. I agree, as a compromise, a single linked page to the Star Trek main article, detailing the characters. Perhaps detailing the main characters of all three Star Trek series. And I also agree with your suggestion about putting the religion discussion onto its own, linked page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)
::: There's been ''five'' live-action series. I'm not sure whether putting them all on the one page is a good idea; one page per series might be better (although a few overlap series).
::: As a minimum, the page(s) should contain details of all the regular characters:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! Original series || Next Generation ||DS9 || Voyager || Enterprise
|- style="vertical-align:top"
|
*[[Captain Kirk|Kirk]]
*[[Spock]]
*[[Dr. McCoy|McCoy]]
*[[Scotty]]
*[[Sulu]]
*[[Uhura]]
*[[Chekov]]
|
*Picard
*Riker
*La Forge
*Yar
*Worf
*Beverly Crusher
*Troi
*Data
*Wesley Crusher
|
*Benjamin Sisko
*Odo
*Worf
*Dax
*Jake Sisko
*O'Brien
*Quark
*Bashir
*Kira
|
*Janeway
*Chakotay
*Torres
*Kes
*Paris
*Neelix
*the doctor
*Tuvok
*Seven of Nine
*Kim
|
*Archer
*Phlox
*T'Pol
*Reed
*Mayweather
*Sato
*Tucker
|}
:::And I've missed a few (including at least two from Next Gen). Plus there's a number of other semi-regular ones that could be included. Putting all them on one page is going to make for a large page, even given only a paragraph or two each.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Great contribution, Philip! Perhaps, since you can, you will add that as a template once others read this and add the missing players? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: If we have separate articles on (most or) all those characters, a nav-box template would be a good idea, but unless/until then, I'm not sure there's much point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::Sometimes I am obtuse, to be sure, but then I don't understand the reason for your work above. Anyway, as you wish, Philip. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 18:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: The reason for the list above was simply to point out that, ''at a minimum'', a page covering all the regulars would be a rather large page, with more than 42 different characters being covered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::May I add a few? Next Gen: Q, Guinan. DS9: Nog, Rom, Female Changeling, Weyoun (post-Season 5), Gul Dukat. Enterprise: Degra (Season 3).-[[User:TitusL|TitusL]] 18:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: They are all worthy candidates, but few fit the criteria of my list above as being regulars, which I define as being those that are listed on the opening theme (sorry, I don't know the technical terms) of the episodes. Nog and Rom may, I don't recall. Q, and I'm fairly sure Guinan, don't, for example. But yes, add others like your suggestions and that 42+ I mentioned could easily become 50 or 60. The ones that I know I missed are the other doctor on TNG and the Bajoran that I think replaced Yar. I could look them up but I couldn't be bothered at the moment, as it doesn't really matter for the current discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Dr Pulaski and Ensign Ro Laren respectively. (PS - my TV shows fireworks in Sydney as I type this, so happy new year PJR!) [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 08:02, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Homosexuality ==

I can't find the rule right now, and perhaps we have never adequately documented it (so the following may not be the ''exact'' criteria), but we don't include information such as a person being homosexual unless ''both'' of the following criteria are satisfied:
* That their homosexuality is certain.
* That their homosexuality is a defining aspect of their life, such as them being a homosexual activist.
As far as I'm aware, the second of these points at least is not the case here, which is why I've reverted the claim a second time.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:47, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:He's been on a gay speaking tour. Is that enough to satisfy #2?[http://www.georgetakei.com/hrc.asp] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 19:57, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Perhaps so. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:42, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::He recently took part in a UK reality TV series (set in the Australian rain forest) in which he openly prosyletised for his particular orientation. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:50, 30 December 2008 (EST)

== Added info ==

Since this is an article about Sulu, should we really be adding personal info about George Takei? I mean, it makes sense to say Sulu was played by "openly homosexual actor George Takei," but all the information about Takei's "marriage" is terribly out of place. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 02:05, 30 December 2008 (EST)

*On reflection, Liam, I agree. I didn't exactly see the linkage and article about the real person, George Takei, when I added it.....just read the discussion about his being Gay, which I thought everyone on the planet knew by now, and had a link about the "marriage". I will remove the extra information, and thanks for bringing it up! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 02:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Futurama

2008-12-30T15:13:06Z

BrianW: /* Seasons and films */ Updated films

'''Futurama''' is an animated television show created by [[The Simpsons]] creator [[Matt Groening]]. The show is based primarily in the 31st century, following the lives of the workers of the package delivery company "Planet Express". There is a pseudo-futuristic theme to the show, that mixes science fiction with modern day culture. It is known for its excellent supporting characters, who often provide as much entertainment as the main characters; Morbo and Richard Nixon are just two examples.

==Characters==

*'''Phillip J. Fry''' or '''Fry''' is the show's main protagonist. In the first episode Fry finds himself [[Cryonics|cryogenically frozen]] on New Year's Eve 1999, awakening on the same day 1000 years into the future. Fry is often portrayed as thoughtful but stupid, with little common sense and less than perfect social skills, working as Planet Express's "Delivery Boy". He has an ongoing crush for Leela, who is constantly turning him down.
*'''Turunga Leela''' or '''Leela''' is the cycloptic spaceship captain of Planet Express. Her origins are an ongoing theme of earlier episodes. Leela is shown as more responsible and ambitious than other members of her crew, and is skilled in martial arts.
*'''Bender Bending Rodriguez''' or '''Bender''' is a drinking, smoking, stealing, prostitute-hiring, generally amoral humanoid bending-robot. Bender generally is shown to have no regard for other people's feelings, but is often shown to actually care about the people he works with, particularly Fry.
*'''Professor Hubert Farnsworth''' or '''The Professor''' is Fry's only living relative. His role is as the senile and eccentric "mad inventor" owner of Planet Express. He seems to hold little or no value to the lives of his crew, and, being over 150 years old, has a very bad memory, and generally exhibits many of the stereotypes of old age. He has a self-cloned "son" named Cubert.
*'''Amy Wong''' is a Chinese intern at Planet Express. She is portrayed as cute but clumsy, and has very rich parents who own the entire "western hemisphere" of Mars.
*'''Dr. John Zoidberg''' is a lobster-like humanoid of the "Decapodian" race of aliens, who works at Planet Express as the company doctor. Even though his patients are all human, he shows very little knowledge of human anatomy. Zoidberg is regarded contemptuously by most of the other characters, and is shown to be very poor and often horribly lonely.
*'''Hermes Conrad''' is the Rastafarian accountant of Planet Express and an ex-Olympic limboer. He works for the "central bureaucracy" and has a wife and a son.

===Minor Characters===

*'''Morbo''' is an extraterrestrial news presenter working on earth. He often shows his contempt for humans and is frequently portrayed as violent and aggressive, with quotes such as 'Puny humans will be pleased to know that their pathetic race was today doomed to extinction' and '...and that's why the orphans of class 2-A are Morbo's 'vermin of the week' '.

==Seasons and films==
Currently Futurama has four seasons, three straight-to-DVD films ("Bender's Big Score", "The Beast with a Billion Backs" and "Bender's Game"), and one more film in the pipeline. The show was canceled by Fox after the fourth season, but was brought back due to the success of the show in reruns on the Cartoon Network.

==External Links==

* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149460/ IMDB website]

[[category:Television Shows]]

Kinetic Energy

2008-12-26T17:03:46Z

BrianW:

'''Kinetic energy''' represents the [[energy]] associated with the [[motion]] of an object.<ref>Serway and Beichner, ''Physics for Scientists and Engineers'', Fifth Edition</ref> It is defined as:

K ≡ [[mass|m]][[velocity|v]]2 / 2 for a point mass and <math> K = {1 \over 2}mV^2 + {1 \over 2} I \omega ^2 </math> for a rigid body, where I is the body's moment of inertia and omega is the body's angular velocity.

The change of kinetic energy is equal to the total [[work]] done on it by the resultant of all [[force|forces]] acting on it. For a point mass this can be expressed as:

Σ''W'' = ΔK = mvf2 / 2 - mvi2 / 2

Where vi is [[speed]] at t = 0 and vf is speed at [[time]] = t.

Kinetic energy is a scalar and has the same units as work (i.e. [[Joule]]).

Note that if the mass of an object is increased, the increase in kinetic energy increases linearly; if the velocity of an object is increased, the increase in kinetic energy increases quadratically. For example, doubling the mass of an object doubles its kinetic energy; doubling its velocity quadruples its kinetic energy.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:physics]]
[[Category:mechanics]]

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-26T16:57:10Z

BrianW:

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:BrianW

2008-11-18T23:41:31Z

BrianW:

Welcome. I studied physics for two years, in the mid-1970s. My dad majored in physics.

Can you make basic physics concepts easily comprehensible to our readers? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for the welcome, Ed. I've experience of teaching university-level physics, but am happy to try to explain things at a level more appropriate to a younger audience. Do you have any suggestions for articles that need attention? [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 18:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Hamiltonian Dynamics

2008-11-18T23:22:07Z

BrianW: New page: '''Hamiltonian dynamics''' is a formulation of mechanics that can be a useful alternative to Newton's formulation. It is closely related to [[Lagrangian Dynamics|Lagra...

'''Hamiltonian dynamics''' is a formulation of [[mechanics]] that can be a useful alternative to [[Isaac Newton|Newton's]] formulation. It is closely related to [[Lagrangian Dynamics|Lagrangian dynamics]], and makes use of the [[Lagrangian]] and [[Hamiltonian]] functions. From a mathematical viewpoint, problems in dynamics can sometimes be simpler to solve when written in the Hamiltonian formulation. The formulation is also important because it allows deep connections between [[Classical mechanics|classical]] and [[Quantum mechanics|quantum]] mechanics to be made.

==Hamilton's Equations==
Hamilton's equations are a set of 2n first order differential equations, which relate the co-ordinates <math>q_i</math> and the [[Momentum|generalized momenta]]:

<math>
\frac{dp_i}{dt}=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i}
</math>

<math>
\frac{dq_i}{dt}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_i}
</math>

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Mechanics]]

Momentum (physics)

2008-11-18T23:09:53Z

BrianW:

Momentum and inertia are related. Inertia is the tendency for a body to remain at rest, until and unless a force makes it begin moving. That same tendency works when it is in motion.

The motion of an object will continue until something makes it change its motion. A railroad car, once it gets going, will continue its motion for a long time, until the tiny forces of friction cause it to slow down and stop. This can take miles. Even putting on the brakes can take up to mile, because there is so much momentum.

Momentum is defined in [[Physics]] as the product (p) of a body's [[mass]] and [[velocity]].

:<math> p = m * v </math>

The faster it goes, the more momentum it has. The more it weighs, the more momentum it has.

A force in the same direction as the body is moving, will increase its speed. A force in the opposite direction will slow it down.

A force coming from the side will turn it.

An interesting case of a sideways force is a weight on the end of a string (like the Biblical slingshot used by [[David]] against [[Goliath]]). While the weight is revolving around you, the string is pulling the weight toward you - but it never gets any closer! This is called a [[centripetal force|centripetal]], or center seeking, force.

=== Generalized momentum ===
The definition of momentum can be generalized in [[Lagrangian Dynamics|Lagrangian]] and [[Hamiltonian Dynamics|Hamiltonian]] dynamics, to

<math>
p=\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot x}
</math>

where L is the [[Lagrangian]] and <math>\dot x</math> is the velocity. In some cases the generalized momentum is the same as the momentum defined above. For example, for a free particle the Lagrangian equals the [[kinetic energy]] and so

<math>
p=\frac{\partial (m\dot x^2/2)}{\partial \dot x}=m\dot x
</math>

as above.

[[Category:Physics]]

University of Cambridge

2008-11-18T21:44:51Z

BrianW:

The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.

Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for ''Cantabrigian'' (from the Latin name for the city, which is ''Cantabrigia''.)

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge". Historically, these two universities (along with Hull university) are regarded as the top English universities.

==List of colleges==
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]

*Christ's College
*Churchill College
*Clare College
*Clare Hall
*Corpus Christi College
*Darwin College
*Downing College
*Emmanuel College
*Fitzwilliam College
*Girton College
*Gonville and Caius College
*Homerton College
*Hughes Hall
*Jesus College
*Lucy Cavendish College
*King's College
*Magdalene College
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)
*Newnham College
*Pembroke College
*Peterhouse College
*Queens' College
*Robinson College
*St. Catherine's College
*St. Edmund's College
*St. John's College
*Selwyn College
*Sidney Sussex College
*Trinity College
*Trinity Hall
*Wolfson College

==External links==
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]

[[Category:British Universities]]

University of Cambridge

2008-11-18T21:10:13Z

BrianW: Magdalen is in Oxford, Magdalene is in Cambridge

The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.

Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for ''Cantabrigian'' (from the Latin name for the city, which is ''Cantabrigia''.)

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge".

==List of colleges==
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]

*Christ's College
*Churchill College
*Clare College
*Clare Hall
*Corpus Christi College
*Darwin College
*Downing College
*Emmanuel College
*Fitzwilliam College
*Girton College
*Gonville and Caius College
*Homerton College
*Hughes Hall
*Jesus College
*Lucy Cavendish College
*King's College
*Magdalene College
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)
*Newnham College
*Pembroke College
*Peterhouse College
*Queens' College
*Robinson College
*St. Catherine's College
*St. Edmund's College
*St. John's College
*Selwyn College
*Sidney Sussex College
*Trinity College
*Trinity Hall
*Wolfson College

==External links==
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]

[[Category:British Universities]]

University of Cambridge

2008-11-18T21:05:33Z

BrianW:

The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.

Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for ''Cantabrigian'' (from the Latin name for the city, which is ''Cantabrigia''.)

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge".

==List of colleges==
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]

*Christ's College
*Churchill College
*Clare College
*Clare Hall
*Corpus Christi College
*Darwin College
*Downing College
*Emmanuel College
*Fitzwilliam College
*Girton College
*Gonville and Caius College
*Homerton College
*Hughes Hall
*Jesus College
*Lucy Cavendish College
*King's College
*Magdalen College
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)
*Newnham College
*Pembroke College
*Peterhouse College
*Queens' College
*Robinson College
*St. Catherine's College
*St. Edmund's College
*St. John's College
*Selwyn College
*Sidney Sussex College
*Trinity College
*Trinity Hall
*Wolfson College

==External links==
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]

[[Category:British Universities]]

University of Cambridge

2008-11-18T21:03:30Z

BrianW:

The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.

Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for the Latin name for the town, which is ''Cantabrigia''.

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge".

==List of colleges==
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]

*Christ's College
*Churchill College
*Clare College
*Clare Hall
*Corpus Christi College
*Darwin College
*Downing College
*Emmanuel College
*Fitzwilliam College
*Girton College
*Gonville and Caius College
*Homerton College
*Hughes Hall
*Jesus College
*Lucy Cavendish College
*King's College
*Magdalen College
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)
*Newnham College
*Pembroke College
*Peterhouse College
*Queens' College
*Robinson College
*St. Catherine's College
*St. Edmund's College
*St. John's College
*Selwyn College
*Sidney Sussex College
*Trinity College
*Trinity Hall
*Wolfson College

==External links==
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]

[[Category:British Universities]]

Cauchy's residue theorem

2008-11-16T17:49:58Z

BrianW: sp, correctly this time!

'''Cauchy's residue theorem''' states:
<blockquote>
The [[path integral]] of a holomorphic function '''f''' around the [[boundary]] of a simple region '''D''' is equal to the sum of [[complex residue]]s of '''f''' in the interior of '''D'''.
</blockquote>
[[category:complex analysis]]

Cauchy's residue theorem

2008-11-16T17:49:43Z

BrianW: sp

'''Cauchy's residue theorem''' states:
<blockquote>
The [[path integral]] of a holomorphic function '''f''' around the [[bounadry]] of a simple region '''D''' is equal to the sum of [[complex residue]]s of '''f''' in the interior of '''D'''.
</blockquote>
[[category:complex analysis]]

User:BrianW

2008-11-15T00:26:51Z

BrianW: New page: Hi. I'm a physicist.

Hi. I'm a physicist.

Schrodinger equation

2008-11-14T23:48:03Z

BrianW:

The '''Schrodinger equation''' is a linear [[differential equation]] used in various fields of [[physics]] to describe the time evolution of quantum states. It is a fundamental aspect of [[quantum mechanics]]. The equation is named for its discoverer, [[Erwin Schrodinger]].

==Mathematical forms==
===General time-dependent form===
The Schrodinger equation may generally be written

<math>i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\Psi\rangle=\hat H|\Psi\rangle</math>

where <math>i</math> is the [[complex number|imaginary unit]], <math>\hbar</math> is [[Planck's constant]] divided by <math>2\pi</math>, <math>|\Psi\rangle</math> is the quantum mechanical state or [[wavefunction]] (expressed here in [[Dirac notation]]), and <math>\hat H</math> is the [[Hamiltonian]] operator.

The left side of the equation describes how the wavefunction changes with time; the right side is related to its energy. For the simplest case of a particle of mass m moving in a one-dimensional potential V(x), the Schrodinger equation can be written

<math>
-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial x^2}+V(x)\psi=i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}
</math>

===Eigenvalue problems===
In many instances, steady-state solutions to the equation are of great interest. Physically, these solutions correspond to situations in which the wavefunction has a well-defined [[energy]]. The energy is then said to be an [[eigenvalue]] for the equation, and the wavefunction corresponding to that energy is called an [[eigenfunction]] or [[eigenstate]]. In such cases, the Schrodinger equation is time-independent and is often written

<math>E\psi=\hat H\psi</math>

Here, ''E'' is energy, ''H'' is once again the Hamiltonian operator, and <math>\psi</math> is the energy eigenstate for ''E''.

One example of this type of eigenvalue problem is an electrons bound inside an [[atom]].

==Examples for the time-independent equation==
===Free particle in one dimension===
In this case, <math>V(x)=0</math> and so we see that the solution to the Schrodinger equation must be

<math>\psi=Ae^{-ikx}</math>

with energy given by

<math>E=\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}</math>

Physically, this corresponds to a wave travelling with a [[momentum]] given by <math>\hbar k</math>, where k can in principle take any value.

===Particle in a box===
Consider a one-dimensional box of width a, where the potential energy is 0 inside the box and infinite outside of it. This means that <math>\psi</math> must be zero outside the box. One can verify (by substituting into the Schrodinger equation) that

<math>\psi=\sin(kx)</math>

is a solution if <math>k=n\pi</math> where n is any integer. Thus, rather than the continuum of solutions for the free particle, for the particle in a box there is a set of discrete solutions with energies given by

<math>E_n=\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}=\frac{\hbar^2n^2\pi^2}{2m}</math>

[[Category:Physics]]

Lagrangian Dynamics

2008-11-14T23:28:59Z

BrianW:

'''Lagrangian dynamics''' are an alternative to [[Newtonian mechanics]]. Lagrangian dynamics are particularly useful in solving for the equations of a motion of a system operating under constraints. Often it is possible, using Lagrangian dynamics, to solve for the equations of motion for a system without needing to solve for the constraint forces, which is why they are often preferred over Newtonian mechanics for these types of problems. It is important to note that both methods will yield the same end result, the only thing that changes is the method of arriving at the end result.

One form of the Lagrangian equation is as follows:

<math>\frac{\partial}{\partial t}({\partial L }/ {\partial \dot q}) - {\partial L} /{\partial q} = Q </math>

Where:
L, the [[Lagrangian]] function, is defined as L = T - V, where T is the total kinetic energy of the system and V is the total potential energy of the system, q is the generalized coordinate, and Q is the generalized force. <math>{\partial L }/ {\partial \dot q}</math> is known as the generalized momentum.

===Example===
Consider a mass m attached a spring with spring constant k. The system has a single degree of freedom: x, the displacement of the mass from its equilibrium position. Then,

<math>T=\frac{1}{2}m\dot x^2</math>

<math>V=\frac{1}{2}kx^2</math>

Thus,

<math>
{\partial L }/ {\partial \dot x} = m\dot x
</math>

<math>
{\partial L}/{\partial x} = -kx
</math>

(Note that the generalized momentum is the same as the "normal" Newtonian momentum of mass times velocity in this problem.) <math>Q=0</math> for this simple problem, and so the equation of motion is

<math> m\ddot x = -kx </math>

which is the same as the result one arrives at by just considering the forces acting on the mass in Newtonian mechanics.

[[category:physics]]

Lagrangian

2008-11-14T23:26:04Z

BrianW: New page: The '''Lagrangian''' of a physical system is defined to be <math>L=T-V</math> where <math>T</math> is the kinetic energy and <math>V</math> is the potential energy. == See Also == [[Ham...

The '''Lagrangian''' of a physical system is defined to be

<math>L=T-V</math>

where <math>T</math> is the kinetic energy and <math>V</math> is the potential energy.

== See Also ==
[[Hamiltonian]]

[[Category:Physics]]

Hamiltonian

2008-11-14T23:24:35Z

BrianW: New page: The '''Hamiltonian''' is a quantity of great importance in both classical and quantum mechanics. == Classical mechanics == In classical dynamics, the Hamiltonian is defined to be <math>...

The '''Hamiltonian''' is a quantity of great importance in both classical and quantum mechanics.

== Classical mechanics ==
In classical dynamics, the Hamiltonian is defined to be

<math>H=\sum_i p_i \dot{q_i} - L </math>

where <math>q_i</math> are the generalised co-ordinates and <math>p_i</math> are the [[momentum|momenta]] conjugate to these co-ordinates, and <math>L</math> is the [[Lagrangian]]. For many problems the Hamiltonian is the same as the energy.

===Example===
For a mass <math>m</math> attached to a spring of spring constant <math>k</math> extended by a distance <math>x</math>, <math>L=m\dot{x}^2/2-kx^2/2</math> and so

<math>
H=m\dot{x}^2-L
</math>

<math>
H=\frac{m\dot{x}}{2}+\frac{kx^2}{2}
</math>

which is the familiar expression for the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator.
== Quantum mechanics ==
The Hamiltonian for many quantum mechanical systems can be obtained by writing down a corresponding classical Hamiltonian and promoting all of the co-ordinates and momenta to operators. The quantum mechanical Hamiltonian is of central importance to the [[Schrodinger equation]].

[[Category:Physics]]

Ring (mathematics)

2008-11-14T23:07:59Z

BrianW: fix math markup

A '''ring''' in [[mathematics]] is a set ''R'' equipped with two [[binary]] [[operation]]s, usually called addition and multiplication, satisfying that

'''1.''' ''R'' with addition is a [[commutative]] [[group]];

'''2.''' ''R'' is closed under multiplication;

'''3.''' Multiplication is [[associative]];

'''4.''' Multiplication [[Distributivity|distribute]]s over addition.

==Examples==
*<math>(\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> - the set of the integers - together with the usual [[addition]] and [[multiplication]] is a ring.
*the [[subring]] of the even numbers is a ring, too: this shows that there is not necessarily a neutral element of the multiplication in a ring.
*<math>(\mathbb{Z} / 6\mathbb{Z},+, \cdot)</math> : this is the ring of six elements {0,1,2,3,4,5} and the usual addition and multiplication [[modulo]] six. So, here 1+3= 4, but 4+5 = 3. Interestingly, <math>2 \cdot 3 = 0 </math>, so, you can multiply two elements, neither of which is zero, and get zero as the result!

==Remarks==

A '''ring with unity''' is a ring for which multiplication has a [[neutral element]].

A '''commutative ring''' is a ring in which multiplication is commutative.

A '''division ring''' is a ring such that ''R'' with multiplication is a (not necessarily [[commutative]]) [[group]].

[[Category:Algebra]]

Electron

2008-11-14T21:00:23Z

BrianW: corrected numbers

An '''electron''' is one of the fundamental subatomic particles which exists with a negative electrical charge and an extremely small mass when compared to protons and neutrons. It is a [[lepton]] with a rest mass of <math>9.109*10^{-31}</math>kgs and carries the [[fundamental charge]] of <math>-1.602*10^{-19}</math> C, and a [[hypercharge]] of -1. An electron has a spin of 1/2 and obeys Fermi-Dirac Statistics.<ref>Gribbin: ''Q is for Quantum''</ref> Electron pairs within an orbital system have opposite spins due to the [[Pauli Exclusion Principle]]; this characteristic spin pairing allows electrons of the same quantum orbital to exist together, as the opposing magnetic dipole moments induced by each of the electrons ensures that they are attracted together.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Protons]]
*[[Neutrons]]

[[category:physics]]

Imaginary number

2008-11-14T20:56:13Z

BrianW:

An '''imaginary number''' in mathematics is any number that contains the imaginary unit, defined as, <math>i^{2} = -1</math>

An imaginary number is of the form, <math>k i</math>, where ''k'' is a [[real number]].

For example <math>\sqrt{-1}</math> has imaginary representation of

:<math>\sqrt{-1}= \pm i</math>.

When a imaginary number is added to real number, they form a [[complex number]]. Imaginary numbers are mathematically useful because they ensure that every polynomial [[equation]] has a solution - for example, the equation <math>x^2+1=0</math> has no real solution.

The analysis of imaginary numbers forms the basis for the field of [[mathematics]] known as
[[complex analysis]].

[[category:mathematics]]
[[category:complex analysis]]