User talk:Jok2000

Twin_paradox
May be, I have to apologize for bad english, but it should be possible to understand, what the content of the message was. So, please turn it to better english, but think about, what was meant. The "paradox" arises from the statement: you can not decide, who moves. But that is simply not the truth! One, who can measure speed of light is able to measure the distance between to stars! ErNa 12:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's the change in the meaning of the word "moves" that creates a paradoxical statement. I think everyone agrees on who is moving and who isn't in this particular thought experiment.Jok2000 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, the problem is: I can say, I move, but that might be a lie or not the truth. A misunderstanding in RT is: There is no fixed frame is not equivalent to: I can not determine, which twin moves. I can determine this, and still there is no fixed frame. Whenever someone states: I can say, which twin travels, he is abused to be an "antirelativist". That makes live complicated. ErNa 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles Fort
I respectfully disagree with your Philip K. DIck edit; this is far, very far, from a page about UFOs. Dick was in a long-time correspondence with the founders of the International Fortean Organisation (INFO) Ron and Paul Willis, (also the editors of the INFO Journal to which Dick subscribed). The International Fortean Organisation (see Wiki entry) is dedicated to Charles Fort, a very major influence on Dick and most of the leading lights of 20th-century science fiction. See, also, Charles Fort, Fortean Society. Tiffany Thayer. The Willis Brothers also published some of Dick's original short stories in their pre INFO sci-fi magazine "Anubis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.118.74 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what Dick wrote seems different from the goals of this organization. Do you have some book or other citation aside from the wiki entry on the FORT page, which itself has no citation that explains the influence on Dick? Jok2000 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the by 'goals" of this organization? See the wiki entry for the International Fortean Organisation. To paraphrase British philosopher John Michell a person influenced by Charles Fort realizes that "the world is very different from the way we are generally brought up to regard it." (From Cosmology and Watercolour, an exhibition at the Christopher Giggs Gallery, London. in 2003. ) Dick always questioned the nature of  phenomenal reality and encouraged the organization for being a showcase for the fantastic reality of Charles Fort.  Dick's short stories are often about the hero being tweaked by the Cosmic Joker.  Dick was very much a part of this organization.  The Edinburgh Science Fiction Society has written, as has many others, about the major influence of Charles Fort on 20th-century science fiction greats.  Dick, along with Stephen King, was one of these. Respectfully yours, Anon````
 * Thanks. Just cite the appropriate Edinburgh Science Fiction Society brief when putting back the deleted line.  Jok2000 13:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

99942 Apophis edit
You were a bit hasty with the revert. I presume you thought it was not for real?Trishm (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Even more hasty with the second revert. I am currently looking at the AFP reports, as well as articles in the original German. Please do not revert a third time before there is a chance to improve the original entry.Trishm (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As you have no doubt noticed, I am but one of dozens of editors noting that the boy's calculation has been refuted by NASA on the grounds it does not take into consideration the angle of approach, and as such is non-notable fluff. Jok2000 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, there have been hundreds of edits since I reverted that bunk, and the end result: That stuff was bunk and I was the first to note it as bunk. Jok2000 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic template
Please do not remove those templates. All of those articles are listed on the template. Each is in fact a philosophical view on logic. Furthermore, although the articles in question may need some development so as to make the relationship clear, eventually they will. However, if you remove them, that will hinder their development. Thank you, Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. You should also know that the point of wikipedia is not to only display one view that prevails, but rather to present all views that have sources (preferably academic sources). All of those views on logic were held at one time or another by respected philosophers of logic. It doesn't matter my opinion of it, and humanism is pretty much irrelevant so I don't know why you brought it up. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I brought up humanism because of Humanism (logic) and the fact you are extending the meaning of the logic template to mean philosophy when in fact logic is a sub-category of philosophy. You have the two completely backwards now, however it seems that you do not notice. Also the subtlety of changing the definition of your own belief system seems also to be lost here somewhere. No matter, logic does not encompass philosophy, philosophy encompasses logic. The template needs to change. I want to take this to WP:rfc as soon as possible. Jok2000 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is just a very rigid view of the priorities in organization. The section is perfectly relevant. Sure philosophy of logic is philosophy. However it certainly is a topic within the purview of a logic template. I would prefer it if you did not advocate to get rid of the section. Thank you. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion about phil of logic section of logic template
I am going to bring the phil of logic section up as a discussion at the talk page of the template. A request for comment has been placed. I invite your contributions. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Philosophers never agree, so rfc is a good thing in this case. Jok2000 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why it is better to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. It becomes a big mess otherwise. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

garbage heap of history
It appears as if you are wikistalking me. If you would like to pursue the afd on the well known phrase "garbage heap of history", which you even used yourself (haha), you will need to make a proper link on the template. The article was not created as a joke, or waste of anyone's time. It's obviously a notable phrase. Be well, 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Pontiff Greg Bard

I am watching your page during the hopefully short period of time we will be discussing the logic templates. AfD's should not be taken personally, neither should watching one's own conversations. This is called paranoia. Jok2000 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Math v Philosophy
You are making the claim on my talk page about what is and is not logic, or what is and is not philosophy. I just thought you should know I've had this discussion about a million times already. You are arriving quite late to that discussion. Suffice it to say, that when logic is taught in the philosophy class, we are told that the same thing is studied in math classes. However, when it is taught in math classes the professor does not mention that, or if he does, it is to give short shrift to the pretenders.

Please don't get the idea that the math department teaches you everything about the subject, and the philosophers only study part of it. Clearly the math people learn some things that we don't learn, and clearly the philosophers also learn something that the math people don't learn. So, no, claiming I understand the part that I have learned isn't arrogance. However, presuming to know everything as you have done in pitying my ignorance, is arrogance. Good luck with that. I hope we can learn from each other (you know: Wikipedia-like.) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you would have the discussion a million times as you never cite a source, as I have done (on the logic template page). It is not arrogant to provide proper citations, as I have done, and you have not. I pity your efforts to convince people with unsubstantiated (by way of citation) reasoning, this is true, but only because Wikipedia is so strict about it. If I may be so bold, it strikes me that you and your professors and students when you were obtaining your degree in philosophy engaged in big time WP:OR and you are repeating it here, with the feeling that you are using those discussions as citations. Unfortunately we are not able to travel back in time to the halls of your University to hear you and your colleagues blaspheme the definition of "reasoning" and "logic". Jok2000 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you have some kind of ax to grind. For somethings like the finer points of a descriptive interpretation I will run and sweat to get the sources. That Platonism was the first philosophical school dealing with logic is known by pretty much every first year student. I'm not much for jumping to get sources every time someone like you comes a long. Eventually these things get straightened out just fine.


 * I am surprised that you are waving "reasoning" in my face as if to say see, nothing to do with logic at all. If it has to do with reasoning, thats the field of logic.


 * Why don't you ask User:Philogo his opinion. We don't always agree, so if you two agree on the content of that section, I will pretty much go along with it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As the above added text contains no citable reference, the discussion ends and I have taken your user page off my watch list, for your comfort. I will accept your statement about first year students, as it must be true somewhere, however I did not take any philosophy courses until my 3rd year.  I would also, before you go, like to thank you for pointing out that Symbolic logic has been renamed to Mathematical logic, as when I took it in 1985 it did seem like a misnomer to me then, but since I still remember it all, I haven't had a need to play the new-textbook-edition-every-year game with the universities for a couple of decades. Jok2000 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The End of Logical Positivism
I noticed that you've removed ", but logical positivism lived on.". I think it would be good change this this to, "but logical positivism lived on until the 60s." or somewhere along that line. I am suggesting this for two reasons. 1. Quine wrote Two Dogmas of Empiricism in 1951. 2. Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. Philosophers of science generally agree that these two works have done by Quine and Kuhn damaged logical positivism the most. Quine first showed that analytic-synthetic distinction is both meaningless and impossible. This triggered the decline of logical positivism. And the rise of Kuhnian historicism showed rational reconstruction of science is extremely difficult. Let me know what you think about my suggestion. Maybe, we could also add my reasoning stated above to justify the timing. Stampit (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but how about removing the metaphor "lived"? This is because the original metaphor "but l.p. lived on" suggested it took a beating but survived it forever.  This is the opposite meaning to what is written in Okasa's "A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science", leaving the reader with the impression that strong arguments were made, and eventually support faded away (this is counter to the meaning of "live") Jok2000 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, and I agree that word is misleading. What do you suggest? Stampit (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I could look up how Okasa described the denouement in his book, but I thought you'd like to take a crack it with google? ...because even when I first read about it years ago, it seemed like a viable system, until I studied it in more detail Jok2000 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

philosophy of logic main article
Hullo: I replied to you at User talk:Philogo:philosophy of logic main article--Philogo 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

peer review
Interesting paper you mention. Could you email me a copy from my user page? DGG (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jung and Carroll
Thanks for your post. I put it up as an item on the discussion page for the Synchronicity article and the Works based on Alice in Wonderland article. See there. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jung
Hello, i think the Jung's article must collect all the writers or thinkers influenced by Jung... that's the importance i gave to my edit. I am the main contributor on french Wp about Jung's article and i show all the fellows influenced by him i think it is a important data about his reception. Otherwise, why do you keep on line a such paragraph? (sorry for my english) In fact, i pla to contribute on this article but i am a new wikipedian, thus it is a way for me to get used to contribuate in english.--Prosopee (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were starting to list everyone who might have had a session, which probably is not a good a idea. For example Wolfgang Pauli had extensive (interesting) correspondence. I got the impression the person you listed spokje only briefly to Jung, but I don't have the original source. Jok2000 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed it is a small source, actually what kind of edit you need on Jung? i can try to translate some parts of french article (i made) to this one about non extended topics..? kindly --Prosopee (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm bad at French, but a quick read through the French version suggests to me that it covers WWII much better than the English version. Maybe you would like to grab a bit of that and put it in the English one?  I was especially intrigued about the secret agent aspect.  I had not heard of that before. Jok2000 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i would be very glad to be in charge of it! i wrote the 80% of the french article and it will be soon on vote for being "good article"... I principally found the source on Deirdre Bairs'Jung which is the best-well documented biography. i am afraid that my translations will be very bad due to my rude english, but i will try anyway. This is a good link for this period (and in english) : Psychotherapy in the Third Reich by Geoffrey Cocks. soon, --Prosopee (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Works based on AiW
I was on vacation when you chose to do mass changes to this page. There originally was an open discussion which was had in the past with regards to the contents (the size of the set, the wishy-washy criteria, the name of the article, etc), during which you chose not to participate; compounding, you decided to revert without providing an opportunity (that i can find) for similar discussion &mdash; you don't see this choice of behavior as a bit poor? Quaeler (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Mostly because you guys deleted my work. Jok2000 (talk)


 * I note, however, in your "rework" that you do actually still include my edits from 3 or 4 years ago, so I have no current complaints about your latest changes. Jok2000 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My 'rework' was simply restoring the first paragraph of the article, not in attempting to clean out the tons of schmutz; in general, i don't have a lot of patience for the type of strategy you're displaying so i'll cede to the article remaining ghetto-ish. Quaeler (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a better analogy is one of a box full of curiosities not yet fully organized, that someone thought might be better burned, and I don't think it is you who thinks this. I suppose I could divide the list into "mere references" and "works based on AiW" fairly quickly, then after letting that settle for a while, we can then truncate the "mere references". By the way, I noticed on your page that you prefer article discussions in the actual article page.  I'll go there in a few days when I have some time. Jok2000 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Works based on Alice in Wonderland
I see you had a concern for some of the content in 2009... well, a whole lot of content has just been deleted. Would you like to have a look at the page, history, and Talk, and give your views? Thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 19:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen
Technically, Lim (Malana Lea) is an accomplice to Kang on that movie and she is an technical expert of the North Korean terrorist group in that movie, which is the probably the reason why she is an villain in that movie and that I wrote henchwoman on it. If you seen that movie, you'll know. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the movie. She is just an actress in a metaphorical role, however I found an interview where she calls herself "henchwoman". I concede the point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH86seJS7dY Jok2000 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Malana Lea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malana Lea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Malana Lea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hafele-Keating experiment
You wrote these equations:

Total time dilation
 * $$\Tau = \Delta\tau_v + \Delta\tau_g + \Delta\tau_s$$

Velocity
 * $$\Delta\tau_v = - \frac{1}{2c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k}v_i^2 \Delta t_i$$

Gravitation
 * $$\Delta\tau_g = \frac{g}{c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k} (h_i - h_0) \Delta t_i$$

Sagnac effect
 * $$\Delta\tau_s = - \frac{\omega^2}{2c^2} \sum_{i=1}^{k} R_i^2 \cos^2 \phi_i \Delta t_i$$

They were removed, but they seems to me as correct.

Have you any source in order to reload them on the wiki page?

Thanks for your contributions. 194.209.163.163 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)