User talk:Timb66

hi timb66, thank you. that page is a real mess. I didn't even write it, (or read it), i just moved it off of the postmodernism page. I changed the sentance, I think the sentance was trying to mean: "Postmodernism's role in language is focusing on the implied meaning of words and the power structures that are accepted as part of the way words are used". Welcome to wikipedia :) Spencerk 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProjects
You will probably be interested in looking at WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Astronomical objects, and WikiProject Physics. I also recommend following the discussions on the talk pages. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of referencing
You may want to see what I have done with Sombrero Galaxy. Note the way references are used throughout the article, including for every entry in the infobox. I saw that you had been working on Procyon, and thought that this example might be useful for you. Dr. Submillimeter 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NGC 2812
I saw that you attempted to speedy-delete NGC 2812. I am ambivalent as to whether the article should stay on Wikipedia (as I like galaxies, but this galaxy is hardly notable), but I would recommend using the formal WP:AfD process. The speedy deletion template that you used would have been appropriate for an article without any data.

If you do use the formal WP:AfD process to delete this article (or other astronomy articles), you should probably post messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects asking for people to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked quite carefully at the policy and it seemed that speedy deletion was the appropriate choice. I can't see any reason for having an article on a random NGC galaxy, but I left a note on the page of the person who created the page. Now I see that an administrator (with no apparent science background) has removed my request for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article has too much content. It has one sentence and a reference to the NED database, which has thousands of galaxies. How much shorter can you get?! Honestly, I can see why people get frustrated with Wikipedia. Timb66 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You just need to learn how to use Wikipedia, which has procedures for administrative tasks such as article deletion. I suggest holding off on deleting this article for now and just looking at some of the discussions at Articles for deletion or Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) to just get a better understanding of how the process works.  Part of the key is to write about science for non-scientists, who are generally able to understand if you explain the situation to them well.  When you understand the people and the processes better, then try nominating NGC 2812 for deletion.  (I myself waited a couple of months before getting involved in article deletion.)  Dr. Submillimeter 12:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks for the advice Timb66 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

formatting
Sorry if I didnt get the formatting correct. I've pulled his comments out of your statment twice now. Hopefully this time, with Jossi's warning, and with my quoting you in his remarks, he'll leave it alone. Lsi john 02:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks! Timb66 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you forgot to sign your last LE talk post. Lsi john 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Holes
Hi - you're right -- not black-body radiation, but rather, Hawking radiation. Also black holes emit large amounts of gamma rays. We should say that in the intro with a citation. Want to do that, or shall I? :)   Gekritzl 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I made some changes and added citations. Please let me know if you agree. Gekritzl 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, looks ok to me, thanks! Timb66 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Special relativity
Dear Timb66,

Thanks for your willingness to work on the mass in special relativity article. There are many subtle issues here and I'm sure that things can be explained much better. I did not like the approach of Edgerck. He took informaton from certain sources and saw that that seems to contradict what was written in the wiki article. He takes this as a right/wrong issue, while in reality it's all a matter of how things are precisely defined (e.g. does the so-called "isolated system" have insulating walls etc. etc.). Count Iblis 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass in special relativity discussion: Reformatted copy of discussion
Hello Timb66,

I've made a reformatted version of the discussion, see here. Count Iblis 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Relativity
Hi Timb66. Thanks for joining Wikiproject Relativity. I have been very inactive in this wikiproject in recent months, due to more important considerations outside of WP. However, it's good that we have another member in the wikiproject. This should spur me on to contribute a little more :) MP  (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi MP. I hope I will have enough time to make a useful contribution. Some of the editors seem to have lots of time to add huge amounts to the discussion pages, and it is hard to keep up. Timb66 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing others' comments
There has been some discussion about whether it is ok to break up one editor's comments by interspersing them with responses, often numerous. My reading of WP:TALK indicates that such action counts as editing another users comments and that it should generally be avoided (see the policy on Interruptions). Timb66 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stellar astronomy
Regarding your edit here: I was thinking about redirecting it to the stellar astronomy section in the astronomy article (rather than Star). Reverting me was not however necessary, if I may say so, as my edit was nothing but a good-faithed attempt to restore the article from some long past blanking vandalism which had never been fully restored. But I didn't re-revert, since I'm inclined to agree that this page should be made into a redirect. Since this is really nothing more than an unreferenced stub, redirecting it seems pretty uncontroversial. You can do it by replacing all of the content of the page with:

In addition, the "main article" link at Astronomy should be removed accordingly, and existing links to Stellar astronomy should be replaced with links to Astronomy or maybe Astronomy or Star where each seems most appropriate.

Hope that helps. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, —AldeBaer 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I went ahead and made the changes. —AldeBaer 00:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! And sorry for the reversion. I had removed the stuff about Stu Weidenschilling once before (who is he?!) and I thought the best things weas to delete everything and change the page to a redirection. Which you have now done, many thanks! Timb66 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass/Energy
Please do not let the "rest mass'/"relativistic mass' discussion mislead you. Photons have mass, in the sense that if you put a box of photons on a scale, the box weighs more. Everyone agrees on that. Likebox 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Most physicists would not phrase it like that. In General Relativity, the source of gravity is not just mass, but all types of energy (and pressure, too, in fact). So the gravitational effects of a box of photons are due to their energy. In modern usage, it is conventional to say that photons have zero mass. Timb66 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you consider the photons as individual objects, then it is a consistent point of view to say that the gravity is due to their "energy" and that their mass is zero. But if you consider the box of photons as one object, the weight is due to its mass. I believe that this is really a semantic debate. I think the only question should be, what is least confusing to people who don't understand? Likebox 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"usually only"
Hi Tim, I can live with that, but beware, perhaps others cannot... Cheers, DVdm 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Weight and “force due to gravity”
Tim, I note your response at Talk: Mass. Would you please do the same at Talk:Kilogram? I note that your are a professor of astrophysics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. These credentials may help this problem to go away. Greg L (my talk) 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure could, especially if you can explain how that gives you some expertise as to what weight and what kilogram mean on my bag of sugar,
 * NET WT 10 LB (4.54 kg)
 * Gene Nygaard 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that context, "weight" and "mass" mean the same thing, which a physicist would call "mass". Of course, a real physicist would use kg and not lb! :-) Timb66 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Relativity
I've decided to introduce WikiProject Relativity as a subproject of WikiProject Physics. In particular, I'd like to bring your attention to the 'Missing articles' section which people can get their teeth into. Hope all's well. MP (talk•contribs) 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your corrections on kilogram article
User:Greg L has jumped back in there and undone the corrections you made at Kilogram. I might quibble with your precise wording, but at least the corrections you made justified your removal of the "dubious" tag. I've tried to put it back the way you had it, for how long I don't know. Gene Nygaard 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know now: seven minutes!  Gene Nygaard 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From Greg L: Tim, the issue is being discussed here on Talk:Kilogram. Please weigh-in on the matter. (Pun intended). Greg L (my talk) 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram’s second paragraph
Tim, I read your comment and agree (see Talk:Kilogram). There has been such a battle raging with Gene for so long about weight being force due to gravity that I’ve lost track of exactly what verbiage truly reflects your efforts. I believe what I have there now is quite close to what you have. I added extra links and other minor stuff. Do you like what is there (on the second paragraph of Kilogram) now? Greg L (my talk) 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Main sequence
Hi Bob. The article on the main sequence is in need of fixing up. You have done such a great job on other astronomy pages, do you have time for that one? I can't spend much time on it, but am happy to pitch in or offer advice if needed. Timb66 10:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for the suggestion. Yes I can try to expand it. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay I have expanded it. There's still some references needed and I'll work on that. When you have a moment, could you look through it and see what needs expanding, clarifying or even removing? I'm sure there may be some corrections needed and a bit of fine tuning. Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell and c
Regarding your question about Maxwell's theory on my talk page:

I read somewhere years ago that it was common knowledge that 1/sqrt(mu_0 epsilon_0) was the speed of light long before Maxwell published his theory of light. They knew it was a speed by dimensional analysis, and that it turned out to numerically equal the speed of light was considered a suggestive coincidence. I wish I could remember where I read about this, but I can't, it was so long ago. Possibly Maxwell's treatise will contain a reference. I don't think there is much in the actual literature--- nobody publishes funny numerical coincidences. I am also not sure how many significant places they had on the speed of light in those days. But in the so-called Gaussian system of units the coincidence is built in, so maybe it goes back to Gauss. I don't know.

In the Gauss units, epsilon_0 is defined in some rationalized way, and mu_0 is defined with a c, so that the magnetic effects have the correct factors of c built in.

It's easy to notice the coincidence in MKS units too. Here mu_0 is defined in a rationalized way, so that it's numerical value is 4pi times 10^-7 or something, so that if you look at the Coulomb constant k= 8.989.. 10^9, the number part, ignoring the powers of 10, is exactly equal to the number part of the speed of light squared (2.998...)^2 = (8.989...). I remember that I noticed the numerical coincidence when I was an undergrad, and after a day or so of head-scratching I realized it was a consequence of maxwell's relation for the speed of light. In pre-calculator days, if you ever had to square the speed of light, you would notice that the pattern of digits 8.989... looks familiar.

So perhaps A good way to see when the coincidence was first noted might be to research the system of electrical units, to see when modern definitions were established. Good luck, I hope you find the answer.Likebox (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See my solid works
Take a look at this, I hve done alot and adding sources. I did fix the section mentioning Earth's fate.-- Freewayguy  Discussions Show all changes 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass/Energy
I am just writing this because I did not get a response on the talk page. You are a physicist--- you should know this. Why did you object to the statement that mass and energy are the same thing? Is it because you think of mass as a scalar and energy as a time-component of a vector? Is it because they have different units? I really don't understand.Likebox (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Origin vs axis
Hi Tim, regarding this, please check the cited Tipler source. And tons of other sources. - DVdm (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the message, I will respond on the talk page . Timb66 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Canopus
Hi - I was wondering whether you could have a look at the article on Canopus and see what you think (what's missing or wrong)? We are trying to improve it to GA ir {{WP:FA\FA]] status....grateful for any input Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Olivia Newton-John, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree Timb66 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)