User talk:RE

RE:

Question Is a proton a physics particle? Wondering why you deleted the link? [1] Thanks, Scott 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, well, yes the proton is a particle but it's also a nucleus ;-). I'll write more in the other talk page. Sorry for confusing you... --RE 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello RE, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ^BlankVerse 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BlankVerse! /RE 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, conversations between Wikipedians usually end up happening in a ping pong-like fashion as they bounce between each user's talk page. If I hadn't put your user page on my watchlist (the "watch" tab at the top of the page) I would have missed your reply.

From the very brief statement on your user page, you may be interested in either the WikiProject California or the WikiProject Physics. ^BlankVerse 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• i could just as easily say that evolution fails Occam's Razor, by the mathematical improbabilites involved. Normally, mathematicians round very very small figures to 0...figures on the same scales of the probabilities of mutations resulting in new species, etc. So mathematically, evolution has a chance of 0. Evolution is fairly new-fangled in history, and for thousands of years it would have been the least likely explanation. It is only with the advent of the Enlightenment that this theory was proposed.

Now of course, since you're a physicist, then this is closer to your field of study than mine, since i'm a college English major. So i am sorry if i am being disrespectful...I don't want to downplay or dishonor your work and experience. However, I would say that you should look around a little more, just to be on the safe side, at least. "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, and any of Hugh Ross' books (he's an astrophysicist, i believe, so that's right up your alley). Ross' website might be a good starting point, www.Reasons.org i do think, though, that creationism and ID should not be on that list, so long as evolutionary theory is not on the list. it's a very inflammatory subject NCartmell 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RE, welcome to the tired light discussion on the tired light talk page.

What a physicist who understands relativity (like you, a rare species here) thinks about the tired light theories (a.k.a. theories of Hubble redshift in a stationary universe)?

Are you aware of a fact that Fritz Zwicky's idea of tired light has a relativistic explanation which leads to a conclusion that we might live in a stationary universe in which Hubble constant of an apparent expansion is ${\displaystyle H_{0}=c/R_{E}}$, where ${\displaystyle c}$ is speed of light and ${\displaystyle R_{E}}$ is Einstein's radius of the Universe? What might be interesting here for you as a physicists understanding relativity is a fact that the apparent expansion is proportional to the curvature of space (${\displaystyle 1/R_{E}}$) and so it has to be a purely relativistic effect that disappears in a flat space. Most likely it's the reason why it was never noticed by classical relativists who assume that energy is not conserved and therefore the spacetime can be described by pseudo Riemannian geometry.

I hope it is still legal to ask such questions despite that my previous question to you has been removed by an administrator for an unknown yet reason (I'm just in a process of explaining the reason). Jim 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wasting your time thinking about it. It's ruled out, and I haven't seen any articles published in real journals saying otherwise. Time to move on. --RE 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed, there is currently an edit war ongoing on that page. The disputed material has so far been shown not to comply with wikipedia's content standards--if you would like to justify it, you may contribute to the discussion.--Asdfg12345 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]