User talk:Karol Langner
Archives:
- User talk:Karol Langner/Archive 1 (archived on 12.11.2005)
 |
|---|
| 19 October 2024 |
|
AfD aka VfD on Philosophical interpretation of classical physics
We could use your opinion on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics
I have nominated as original research but feel that it is important to solicit additional opinions on the matter before an administrator is forced to make a decision. As I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines - is an interesting one; however, I need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Category policy for research institutions
Hi Karol,
your feedback is welcome :) --DarTar 13:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Brahma Kumari World Spiritual Organisation
Hi
got your message at the above entry. Yup, it is work in progress.
Partly, I was working late at night and had to call time; partly, I wanted to engage others in the process and so at least to leave some sense of form.
Will have a look at creating an account etc. and so will a few days to put some polish on this entry.
Thanks.
I have a dynamic IP address.
Categorization if Musical notation
See my edit summary: "rm supercats". Hyacinth 17:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
History of thermodynamics
Thanks for your contributions to this article. I was just admiring how much more filled out the early sections are than when I read them last. --arkuat (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Psy guy's RfA
 | Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC) |
Pharmacology
I was wondering why you chose to remove pharmacology from the science catagory as it is clearly a science. Bartimaeus 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. If you like what i've done so far just wait until i've finished exams. I'm really going to shake things up. Bartimaeus 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Move Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics
Hello - I would like to move the information in Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics to the thermodynamics article. I think all of its content belongs there. What do you think? PAR 00:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Optical Tweezers should be under the physics categories
Hi Karol,
thanks for taking time to edit the categories of the optical tweezers page. I have some issues with the categorising the Optical Tweezers topic under Laser. First of all, the pheonmenon of optical tweezers is based the physics of light-matter interaction. The physical interaction have implications on condense matter physics(Brownian motion and statistical mechanics). On top of that, the study of novel optical tweezers require extensive study into laser physics and optical physics as well.
Furthermore, for the latest work in optical tweezers, lasers are not the main optical sources used in the mechanical tweezing action, LEDs and supercontiuum sources are used instead. I therefore feel that the optical tweezers would be better categorising with
Category:Physics|Atomic, molecular, and optical physics|Condensed matter physics|lasers
Cheers 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Leenewt 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Is Cx necessary
Hello Karol - We have been having a discussion about the proper direction of the heat capacity article. Could you take a look at the talk page under "Is Cx necessary" and please give us your opinion? I know its a lot of back and forth to wade through, but we really need your help. Thanks - PAR 15:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipediology
I'd like to ask those fellows who have not indicated whether or not they grant permission for a wikibio on them to please do so soon. I'd also appreciate it everyone could expand or create the wikibios for which permission has been granted. The wikibio project simply won't be useful unless fellows actively participate; so I'd like to issue a challenge that each fellow contribute at least one sentence to two wikibios. I'll be on wikibreak for the next week and when I get back there will be prizes in store for the fellows who have the three highest edit counts on wikibios. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Re:[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Halibutt]
Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thermodynamic Evolution
Karol, today a created a nice image for everyone and posted it into a new subsection of the thermodynamics article thermodynamic evolution. Can you take a look at it, possibly smooth it a bit, and tell me what you think of it? Thanks, --Wavesmikey 18:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
User page vandalism - Thanks!
The vandalism love me, what can I say. Thanks for reverting the comment. -- Psy guy Talk 22:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I revoke your Psi Award! I just remembered that I have already given it to you. Instead please accept this Barnstar of Reversion along with my thanks. -- Psy guy Talk 22:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup tag on Education
Hi,
I have been assessing articles as part of the Wikipedia 1.0 core topics project, and I noticed your cleanup tag on the article education. Can you look over the article to see if you think the tag can be removed yet? If not, could I ask you to describe specifically what still needs to be done, and post this on the talk page? That way we will know that the cleanup has been achieved. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 03:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Physicalists and Monists (moved from my user page)
I couldn't help seeing your objections to removing the Ionian school. I hope you don't mind too much if I say your vocabulary is not in general use for ancient philosophy. I know that by physicalist you mean a person who studies physis or nature. The word is a specialized meaning to some catholic philosophers and is not in general use. To most people it means physicist or materialist. They don't know what physis is. But, strictly speaking, by your standards, there are no ancient philosophers who are not physicalists. Aristotle would seem to be the biggest physicalist of them all, having even written treatises on physis. And what do you do with Lucretius? He has to be a physicalist. No. No, no. The term is a bad one, a localized fad. I general I do not think it a good idea to apply modern categories. Ancients are not moderns. They didn't think like us and it isnt useful to apply our categories to them. Sweeping generalizations are never a good idea. We had the same thing with people like Hegel, Morgan and Marx. Hegel's historical stages are absurd. Of course at that time nothing much was known about the past. The only thing that survives is his theory. There is no Ionian unity, nothing you can put your finger on and say, these men thought alike in this respect.
There is no Ionian school. We have the Milesians. They were looking for to hypokeimenon. The we have Heraclitus, a totally different philosopher. He was exploring to on. Then we have some pluralists among whom were the atomists. If these are all physicalists, how are we to distinguish between them? Moreover, we all seek the nature of things. We are all physicalists. We dont want to rewrite history with ever new and ever faddish concepts that dont apply. We want to talk about the Pre-socratics as they were. They weren't physiologists, nor were they physicalists. If the Ionian school stays on the Internet, the only thing it is going to achieve is confusion in the minds of the uninitiated and disrespect for the Internet among the classical scholars.
Note: Posted by User:Botteville
Later. Well it is nice to hear from you. Wikipedia has not been acting rightly lately due to system problems so I have not been sure what it is doing. I did not realize anyone could "clean up" talk as well. I don't mind being "cleaned up" as long as the cleaned up text says the same thing as the uncleaned text and doesn't put words in my mouth. I don't always want to say what you want the public to think I said.
Well I am glad you are doing a lot of thinking. Thought is good at any age. Dialogue is always dynamic. I know your point of view seems to match that of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Are the Jesuits still in charge of all education in the church? I'm more familiar with them as we have Boston College around here and also Merrimack college not far from my home. Very nice people. I learn a lot from their publications.
I understand what they are trying to do with "physicalst" and that other riotous term "panmetabolism." This is fully in their tradition. To someone who knows Greek and Latin this is a very amusing approach. If you don't it is totally mystifying, which is what they want. They want you to start exploring the mystery. My only objection is that the words look like other English words. Their use of physiologist, for example, introduces an equivocal meaning for the word that was not there before. Although very clever, this use does not demonstrate, explain or simply present the topic.
But my point of view is that of the technical writer. I don't want to dazzle with innovative brilliance, only to explain. If I still cannot convince you then I suppose I will have to work around you, in as far as I do work on the subject. One suggestion I would have is to put in links to places that explain these dazzling terms or else give some brief explanation in the article, such as "a physicalist is...". We don't want to make the reader feel like an ignoramus when in fact almost no one would know what is meant there. Wikipedia has marked many philosophic articles that use confusing or equivocal language.
As for the Ionian school, nonsense. There was none. But, as long as the traditional approach of Pre-socratic and Milesian school get presented I suppose it is nothing I can't live with; that is, I'm still in the Wikipedia philosophy game. You are, however, going to lose the classicists with it (if you ever had them).
Well I like to move around to different subjects and I sort of got pulled back to this one, but I will be back in the course of my proretrokineticism to do more work and see how the issue got resolved and if there is anything I can do to clarify the topic. What do you think, is coexistence possible? au revoir, au revoir.Dave 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I did not modify the text you placed on my user page. Karol 14:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, not on that user page. On the deletion discussion. But you know, I probably never will find out what happened there. So, I am dropping it.
- I did not know it was rude to place discussion on the user page. I am new to Wikipedia. I do apologize for my inadvertent rudeness. I hope you will forgive me.
- Certainly, it is not my intent not to have a normal discussion. If you view it as not normal or are offended by it then clearly it should stop. Whatever points I had to make I made them. Nothing is to be gained by dwelling further on it. It's time to move on. Best of luck to you. Goodbye.Dave 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Where I was :)
Close but no cigar! I was in Chicago.
Final version?
What do you mean by final verion in the edit summary to your user page? -JCarriker 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I had similar concerns, I decided that the best way to conteract that is to thouroughly cite sources, with emphasis on the paper ones. It a pain in the ass, but its the only way to correct that problem. I'm still not as active in the article space as I once was because I spend most of that time finding paper sources and have also decicted a signifigant amount of time to wikicivics with orgnizations like Esperanza and IW. Take care. -JCarriker 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hot & Cold Photons?
I've left some comment on the thermodynamic evolution "Talk Page". Let me know if you have suggestions. Thanks:--Wavesmikey 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Irregular / ragged matrices
Hi Karol. I'm a bit uncomfortable with your entry on irregular matrix. I'm sure they exist and are useful, but I feel they shouldn't be described as matrices; how about something like "An irregular matrix is a generalization of the concept of a matrix"? Or perhaps it's better to link them to two-dimensional arrays (my experience is that "array" is more a computing term and "matrix" more a maths term). Furthermore, they are not just "inconvenient", but not studied at all in linear algebra (as far as I am aware). For this reason, I'd also like to remove Category:Matrix theory. However, I realize that I have a slanted point of view as a numerical analyst, so I wanted to check with you before editing the article. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. I took the info directly from here. I just changed some of the wording and recatogrized the thing. Hope it's fine now, because I don't plan to expand it anymore, just made a stub. Karol 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine now, except that you really should have stated where you took the information from. But I fixed that, so you can forget about it now ;) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Casimir effect
Sorry for this but you can delete it
Can you please tell me only ONE BOOK that says the Casimir-effect is caused by virtual particles??? The Casimir-effect is explained by zero point oscillations and not by the concept of virtual particles. You can ask someone, every professor if he knows something about this would tell you the Casimir-effect is explained in terms of the electromagnetic zero point energy
Strings instruments
Nominated for DYK :
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List_of_string_instruments, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
- Nice :) Karol 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Casimir effect
Sorry for all this, but I'm new here. Well, it was rude and I'm sorry for this. I thought you changed the article. However, virtual particles have nothing to do with the ground state of the electromagnetic field. They are present in the vacuum like the ground state oscillations of the electromagnetic quantum field that have energy hbar*omega/2. Virtual particles are virtual transition of these oscillations. These transitions cannot be observed. So, we have for a small amount of time the energy of an oscillation: E=hbar*omega/2 + Evirtualparticle where the second term is not directly observable. You must note that virutal particles exist only for a short time while the oscillations are always present. The original Casimir-force is however explained by zero point oscillations which are NOT virtual particles. I read enough books about this topic and in no book they call zero point oscillations virtual particles.
DYK
|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List of string instruments, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Comp Chem stuff
Hi Karol, Thanks for fixing up some of my edits. It is tedious stuff fixing little things. At least we now have a table of codes with a page for each of them, even though many of the pages need a lot more adding. Any thoughts on the rest of the stuff I have added recently? Compliments of the season to you and a happy New Year. Bduke 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I'll keep on trucking. Bduke 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Categories
I see that you have modified the categorization at Portland, Oregon. Currently we are discussing the issue about how to categorize such articles. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Defining_subcategories as we still need more input. Thanks, Cacophony 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Physics organization
Dear Karol, thanks for your invitation. I have indeed contributed approximately 600 articles about physics, most of them are rather specialized, and right now I don't see how a particular team of five people can improve these things significantly. You may try to edit the articles listed in "my contributions". At any rate, I wish you a good luck. All the best, LM --Lumidek 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Statistical thermodynamics
How did you come across that article? I thought it would have been forgotten :-) Would you happen to be able to improve vibronic coupling a bit, you think? Anyway, nice to see another quantum chemist around! --HappyCamper 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Massive Attack from Major artists list
How come Massive Attack was removed from the list? Like the section is titled, it's a list of major artists, and the group were one of the stalwarts of the genre. --JB Adder | Talk 21:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
please see my reply on the AfD of golden age hip hop. thanks, --Urthogie 15:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I randomly picked your name from editors on a chemistry article. I was going through the 0 length pages at Special:Shortpages and correcting the blanking I found. However, on the article Gas phase ion chemistry, I'm not sure what to do. An anom user blanked the article, but what was there soley consisted of "Gas phase ion chemistry is the study of gaseous ion particles". I could mark it was a dictdef, but was wondering if this should be redirected instead. Are should it be made a stub? I would appreciate your opinion or a suggestion of who else to ask. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks,
Hi Karol, Thank you for the barnstar! linas 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)