User talk:Christopher Thomas/Archive05

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Casimir Effect
I have read that the nanotechnology application of the Casimir effect involves the "critical Casimir effect" which is not a quantum mechanical effect but rather is a classical analog in which thermal fluctuations cause a similar effect. See:

www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1742-6596/161/1/012037 and

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32380

What is your take on this idea? Canuck100 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A glance at the links suggests that it's valid, but calling it a "Casimir effect" is a bit misleading. What they've done is set up a completely different type of situation that can be analyzed using similar mathematical techniques. This is a very useful approach, and the system they're analyzing produces very interesting behavior. I'd think this would be more applicable to MEMS and microfluidics applications than to true nanotech, as my impression from the article is that the scale of the phenomenon is much larger than atoms, but it's still a neat article.


 * Per my user page, I'm more-or-less on sabbatical now, so you might want to post further questions about this topic at either the talk:nanotechnology, talk:microfluidics, or talk:Casimir effect talk pages. It could certainly be linked from the "external links" section in Casimir effect, as an investigation of an analogous phenomenon (much as with the sonic black hole analog of black hole effects). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Event horizon
Hey. Ive seen the Event Horizon page of yours. It has an image where world line of an particle is compared with the light cone of an event. Why is this done and not a comparision of both world lines and both light cones.

PS: If i'm wrong in understanding it, please tell me with a suggested link....Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikoti (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to go with the simplest possible diagram that showed the concept being illustrated. In this case, the diagram is trying to show that there are some events that can never be observed by a uniformly accelerated particle. To demonstrate that, all I need to show is one such event's light-cone. The other light-cones and world-lines don't help explain the concept, and so I felt that they would just be cluttering the diagram.


 * If you feel that there's a better way to draw a diagram illustrating this concept, by all means make one and propose its use on the talk page for the article! I'm actually surprised my diagram lasted this long (it was thrown together as a placeholder). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruk2008
Why do you think is the same person? That account has been around for a long time, and the editing pattern seems quite different to me, although I haven't looked at any of the actual edits in detail. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another user had flagged them. A quick look found that they had the same style of user page (a short phrase relating to their username), the same habit of blanking their talk page whenever questioned, and over the last few months has mostly been adding references to articles in their preferred field. So, I added them to the list. That said, I acknowledge that there are differences (they seem to have made edits other than reference additions prior to April, and are spending more edits on a smaller number of articles). I've added a qualifier to that alias on the RFC page. Perhaps you and the other users involved in the RFC could discuss it amongst yourselves (I'm trying to reduce the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia again). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider the RFC a waste of effort. This guy pushed it so far over the line that if he does anything abusive again, I'll go to ANI and ask for a block, and I'm pretty sure it will happen -- as long as it's reasonably clear that it's actually the same guy.  I'm not convinced, so I'll hold off.  Thanks for the info, Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of making sock-puppetry clear is why I've been suggesting that others involved ask for a checkuser to be performed. It would take about 20 minutes to submit the request with all of the paperwork in place and doublechecked, which is more than I'm willing to spend at this time, but it should settle the question very quickly.


 * The RFC page serves two purposes right now. First, it provides a handy repository of evidence that can be linked from any AN/I thread and from the checkuser request ("this person has been causing problems, which several users describe (here)"). Second, I've been on the sidelines in WP:DR enough times for it to have become very clear that any request for serious action will be met with a request to take it through all possible levels of dispute resolution first. This RFC was the next step to take after attempts to talk were rebuffed. Beyond this, the next step is probably finding someone to act as a formal mentor, with further steps after that taken if the user continues to create sock puppets and add arbitrary references (it's not clear they're actually doing this still, so this could all be moot point for the time being). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FTL Travel and reversion of good faith edit?
Isn't Non-physical realms a fictional and (right now) impossible thought? So why was my edit reverted? Just a thought. --Rockstone35 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Taking a look, I get the impression that that section is only there because people kept asking questions along the lines of "what about hyperspace?". What I'm getting at is that the FTL article is not intended to contain a list of FTL methods used in fiction.


 * Doing a bit of digging, there doesn't seem to be a page that contains this sort of list, which is very peculiar (there's a Category:Faster-than-light travel in fiction, but no catch-all pages about it). If you feel like collecting this sort of information, I'd suggest starting an Interstellar travel in fiction page, breaking it down by category (FTL/STL, books, television, and video games), and be prepared to defend it's existence (there are people who feel that all such lists are pointless; I think they're useful, but should be mostly on their own pages). WP:LIST supports the creation of list pages in general, and will give formatting suggestions. WP:IPC discusses "in popular culture" sections, which this type of list more or less is. Summary is that they're ok, but have to list provably notable examples (instead of all examples). I'll be glad to give advice, but there's a limit to how much I can help directly, due to time constraints. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, Thank you. I'm not going to start the article until tomorrow, but thanks! --Rockstone35 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Article is up! Interstellar_travel_in_fiction, What do you think of it? :)--Rockstone35 (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good start, but there's quite a lot of work needed before it'll be safe from people proposing it for deletion. I've outlined the main concerns on the article's talk page. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jupiter brain
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jupiter brain. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jupiter brain. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded, thanks (on the off chance a non-bot reads this). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note
This is a courtesy note to inform you that a notice regarding evidence submission and general conduct has been added to the speed of light evidence page. Please review your evidence submission to ensure that it meets the standards requested. This is not a message targeted at your submission, but rather a general note. You are being informed because you have submitted evidence prior to the posting. Thank you for your time, attention, and understanding. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. After reviewing it, I believe that my post meets the standards as-is. Thank you for the notice, however. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. I'm unfortunately planning to go on wiki-sabbatical again soon, but I appreciate the thought! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Orion's Arm
An editor has nominated Orion's Arm, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.Robofish (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

wp project physics talk page
I responded to your query over at WP project physics talk. I probably need to tag the article as under construction. Thanks for you query, by the way. It helped me to clarify some things Ti-30X (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thank you... I hadn't thought of that... Miszabot was starting to annoy me though... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. I had to use similar tricks to get threads archiving properly at Talk:Interstellar travel a little while back (bogus timestamps inside comment tags, for undated posts too old to still have history information). This is a known workaround for Miszabot idiosyncracies (it's documented, but hard to find). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)