text:
Science as religion/Darwinism

Welcome to the Darwinism as Religion discussion group. Participants in this learning project read about evolution and religion and discuss the claim that Darwinism is taught as religion in public schools.

Is Darwinism the religion of public schools?

 * Bonnie Alba suggests that Darwinism is taught as religion in public schools: "parents continue to cede to Darwinism Religion in our public schools". How much time is actually spent teaching evolution in public schools? Is evolution taught in biology classes or in religion classes? (project start, 28 August 2006.....feel free to sign your discussion comments on this page.)

Additional reading

 * Evolution and medicine: the long reach of "Dr. Darwin" by Niall Shanks and Rebecca A. Pyles in Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 2007; 2: 4.
 * "The Causes and Consequences of HIV Evolution", in Nature Reviews: Genetics, Volume 5, pages 52-64, 2004.

Discussion

 * The question "Is Darwinism the religion of public schools?" makes several assumptions which themselves should be questioned. Perhaps a more valid heading is: Is Darwinism a religion?  Or "What defines a religion?"

Central dogma
-- What about the central dogma of molecular biology? would you still consider it a dogma? comment added by 200.89.69.67 00:52, 24 May 2007
 * When Crick first used the term "central dogma" he called it "dogma" because it was a widely accepted idea for which there was very little real supporting evidence. During the past 50 years there has been accumulation of a huge amount of confirming evidence supporting the idea that genetic information is stored in nucleic acid sequences and can be used by cells to produce corresponding protein sequences.

Correction: Crick dubbed it the central dogma to poke fun at religion.

Knowledge vs belief

 * Decimal arithmetic is also taught in public schools. Does that also make it a religion? Science is knowledge whereas religion is belief. The author (Alba) makes no effort to try to separate both. Pedro.Gonnet 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Although Religion is a belief it is often incorrectly claimed to be scientifically based. A consequence of this is the question as to whether religion should be a subject of science. The lack of any scientific proof for religion precludes the ability to consider such as a science. It is not a science. To make such a claim is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of science.
 * Religion is increasingly a subject for scientific study. Religion can be studied as a natural phenomenon. --JWSchmidt 02:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, the study of religion as a social event, the effect on large numbers of people can be studied scientifically. This is true of any grouping of individuals and is not unique to religion. It does not, however, concern itself with the factual validity of the religion itself but rather with the effect it has on groups of people. Since this can be statistically measured and modeled, such studies fall within the realm of science even if the religion itself clearly does not.

When the writer talks about scientific proof he/she is mistaking the scientific process. Mathematicians prove; scientists observe. A better choice of words would be scientific evidence in place of proof. With regard to evidence religious persons might claim there is evidence that supports ones beliefs just as Darwinists claim there is evidence to support evolution, and both sides might question whether the evidence scientifically supports the others beliefs. Is there evidence that supports undirected evolution?—

The nature of scientific theories

 * This page, and the article it originates from, is totally meaningless. As others have pointed out, evolution theory has many fruitful consequences, but this is irrelevant. Even if it did not, knowledge of how nature works is a goal per se. Evoulution theory is a scientific theory in the sense that there are a number of conceivable archeological findings that could in principle falsify it. For example, a fossil primate datable the Mesozoic era, or a fossil cat with wings ascribable to any era. None of the above would falsify creationism. God could have created cats with wings, horns and breathing fire. No conceivable finding could possibly falsify creationism. Not even millions of findings supporting evolution theory will ever falsify creationism because after all - who knows what God thinks? - god could have perfecly deceived human beings into believing that evolution theory is true, simply by placing fossils in the correct times and places to test human "faith". So, creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a mysteric explanation which resorts to mystical intervention which could explain anything and the contrary of anything. It has exactly the same value as the theory that all reality is an imaginary construct of my consciousness, which is the only existing being in the universe (no, not your consciousness. Mine). Basically, as far as science is concerned, creationism is nothing at all. Massimamanno 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reproducible observations vs revelation

 * Science and Religion are both concerned with the proposition of generative mechanisms to any observable phenomena. Science is dependent upon repeatable observations to inform its claims, while religions typically rely on the claims of prophets as revealed to them by god.  Any teacher unable to inform their students as to the repeatable observations that inform modern understanding of the Theory of Evolution really should not be in the business of teaching science.  Ms. Alba presents a series of fundamental misconceptions about the nature of science and the biological sciences in particular.  The idea that there are no transitional fossils, no observed incidents of speciation and the seeming contradictory nature of the "Cambrian Explosion" are all famous Creationist canards, easily explained away by anyone who takes a moment to review any of the pertinent information on the subjects.Mr. Knuffke 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Has Darwinism really failed to achieve the goals set out by Alba?

 * Before we start, shouldn´t we ask ourselves if darwinism equals evolution ? If not, then we should take full responsability and look for the reductionist (and functionalist) flaws in the neodarwinian paradigm, without the need of invoking creationist magic, e.g. we may consider systemic biology, structural coupling, autopoiesis and evolution by natural drift (see Maturana & Mpodozis, 2000). comment added by 200.89.69.67 00:52, 24 May 2007
 * Rambaut, Posada, Crandall, and Holmes dicsuss how HIV evolves within and among hosts through natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. If you had a drug-resistant variant of AIDS, would you want your doctor to be a creationist?
 * Some creationists make a distinction between the rapid and observable evolution of micro-organisms and the evolution of new species (example), saying that the observable evolution of micro-organisms does not indicate that new species arise by gradual natural selection. --JWSchmidt 01:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that depends on how we're going to define "species." Is reproductive isolation enough?  Looking for a speciation event is a bit like Zeno's paradox... at what point does Achilles pass the tortoise?
 * Here's a good quote from that article:  "Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall."  I.E.-- DNA is immutable.

 * I guess this discussion only makes sense if we first enumerate the 'goals set out by Alba':
 * 1) "What scientist and field of science relies on and solely depends on Darwin’s theory of evolution for any advances in human progress?"
 * 2) "What advances in modern medicine, technology and products were derived solely from relying on Darwin’s theory of evolution?"
 * 3) "Did evolution produce gas-powered mowers, sticky notes, aluminum foil, zip-lock bags, war and peace, medicines, mammogram machines, vaccines, zippers, microwaves, coffee machines, etc.?"
 * 4) "Without belief in Darwin’s overall theory, would scientists still have discovered the wonders of the genetic code?"
 * 5) "Would they have embarked on exploring the universe, developing complex mathematical equations, discovered black holes and other anomalies [without belief in Darwin’s overall theory]?"
 * 6) "How has evolutionary theory contributed to discoveries of the building blocks, atoms and molecules?"
 * 7) "Do we really require Darwin’s evolution theory for human societies and the study of all things?"
 * 8) "What has it produced?" or, more rethorically laden "The deep silence of the Darwinian faithful, who cannot give us the answers for their beliefs, speaks to us loudly and clearly."
 * The first two questions are answered rather nicely in the Nature article.
 * The goals 3-6 are of a more lofty nature and are not achieved by Darwinism or evolutionary theory (ET), since they have nothing or very little to do with biology. This may be the result of Alba casting Darwinism and ET in the mold of a religion as a driving force of humanity. I doubt, however, that any religion will fare any better at these goals.
 * The goal/question 7 has to be split in to two subquestion: a) "for human societies" and b) "the study of all things". Darwinism and ET is only of limited applicability for societies and is best known for it's misuse in such fields (although viewing the survival of a society under ET becomes an interesting and relevant question). Regarding the "study of all things", Darwinism and ET are definitely useful for understanding Biology (see, again, the Nature article), yet "all things" may be too high an aspiration. Again, this is probably the result of trying to cast Darwinism and ET as a religion.
 * The 8th and final goal can again also be answered by the Nature article -- almost all advancements in immunology and virology stem from the assumption that all organisms -- and hence all genes -- have a common ancestor. Pedro.Gonnet 07:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't understand this. Maybe someone can enlighten me. All I see here is citations from anti-evolution websites (trueorigin.org, evolution-facts.org...) and from a Christian fundamentalist- at least, from what I can see (Alba). This is Wikiversity, right? I'm new here, but I expected this to work somewhat like a university. And at a university, people usually look at all sides of the argument. Not just looking at the facts that seem the most pleasing to our background or personal ideas. So please, if this is just another anti-evolution rant, could you at least make that clear to people who come onto this article? IronChris 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an exploration of a claim about a certain type of relationship between some scientific ideas and religion. It might be possible to label the Alba article as an "anti-evolution rant", but it is hard for me to see how that label applies to this discussion. At the top of the page is the suggestion that participants read "The Causes and Consequences of HIV Evolution".....hardly a citation to an anti-evolution source. If a side of the argument has been left out, please add it in. --JWSchmidt 05:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Christianity the religion of public schools?
It depends on your culture, my dear.

What is Science? What is Religion?
Science is systematic empirical inquiry, based on doubt, looking for facts. It is not a movement, but a philosophy on how to attain knowledge. Therefore, science should not be viewed as a body of knowledge (that may or may not be proven incorrect), but rather as a frame of mind and philosophy on how to be as honest and objective as possible in trying to find and apply the rules that govern the natural world. Religion is assumption, without inquiry, based on beliefs handed down through generations. Unlike science, religion is a movement. Being a movement implies having an agenda. Even though a scientist may have an agenda, science (as a process) does not.

This describes science as being at least in part a philosophy. Wouldn't that imply that science starts with certain assumptions? That is, there is only the natural world and by definition, no creator, no intelligent design. I have heard some in the scientific community saying that "God" or "God"-like figure isn't given consideration because it can't be proved. Could it be that God just hasn't been proved yet. I find it fascinating that the science community of any particular age treats their existing beliefs as irrefutable because they have been scientifically proven, and yet our understanding of natural law is constantly evolving. Many of the best minds of the day thought the world was flat until they found it wasn't. Is it possible that science will deny the existence of a spiritual realm until they find it exists? Could it be that some "scientist" somewhere is discovering that the lack of a spiritual realm doesn't match the reality of his observations and thereby sets about to test his hypothesis that another dimension in addition to the physical world exists? I find that people of religious belief and people of science both operate on faith. One has faith that a spiritual realm exists and the other has faith that it does not.68.108.223.178 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Ty Lorts

"the science community of any particular age treats their existing beliefs as irrefutable because they have been scientifically proven" <-- We all face the danger that we will adopt and act on an assumption, then at a later time discover new evidence that makes it impossible to continue making use of that assumption. Science often discards old assumptions after new methods are found for exploring the world and providing us with new information that we previously lacked. Science builds upon objective evidence that multiple people can collect and examine. Within science, rather than take things on faith there are rewards for finding new ways to test existing ideas, hypotheses and theories. A "scientific proof" is just an argument that other scientists accept as a valid argument. When new information becomes available, old proofs can be abandoned, possibly because they were built upon faulty assumptions. I think the only real "faith" within science is the idea that the assumptions, beliefs, and ideas we adopt are best based upon objective evidence that is open to constant challenge, questioning and re-evaluation...and even that "faith" is based on much human experience and learning from past successes and failures. Sometimes if you are not an expert in a particular scientific specialty it might seem like you are forced to take the claims made by experts in that scientific specialty "on faith". This is where the track record of that discipline becomes important. It is always fair to ask if scientists in that field previously demonstrated that they can be trusted. The need for open evaluation and criticism of scientific claims never ends. In general, new scientific ideas are tentative and given little weight until many independent investigators can evaluate and confirm the results and conclusions, ideally by using multiple tests of different design. One strategy that many scientists often make use of is Occam's razor. If Darwin suggests that new species can arise and evolve by natural selection while a religion's doctrine says that an unseen intelligent designer is needed, many scientists are going to view it as a welcome simplification to abandon belief in the need for an intelligent designer: doing so saves us from having to provide objective and reproducible evidence for the unseen intelligent designer that is only known to us through religious doctrine. If you brought God to the next AAAS annual meeting for public demonstrations of the creation of new species by intelligent design, many scientists would be thrilled and would re-examine their assumptions. Many scientists do not feel that it is productive to assume that there is an unseen intelligent designer because that "answer" to the question of where living things come from creates the additional problem: where did the intelligent designer come from? I'm interested in the idea that some things might be easily known by subjective means yet be difficult to demonstrate objectively. For example, the human brain might have some sources of knowledge that science has not yet discovered. Scientists make a living by collecting data and doing experiments that other people can reproduce, so they are not usually ready to spend their time investigating supernatural and spiritual claims that have long resisted the available scientific methods of study. I think the general assumption is not that "supernatural things do not exist" but rather something like, "As a scientist, I am unlikely to find objective evidence for claimed supernatural entities, so I'll devote my efforts to other topics of study". "Could it be that some "scientist" somewhere is discovering that the lack of a spiritual realm doesn't match the reality of his observations and thereby sets about to test his hypothesis that another dimension in addition to the physical world exists?" <-- Yes, it could be, but if a method was found to reproducibly provide evidence for a "supernatural phenomenon" then it seems to me that the phenomenon would then pass into the domain of science. --JWSchmidt 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is Religion?
Mirriam-Webster defines religion as:
 * 1b. commitment or devotion to religious¹ faith or observance
 * 2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious¹ attitudes, beliefs, and practices
 * 4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith²

 * ¹religious: 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
 * 3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

 * ²faith: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
 * 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
 * 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious¹ beliefs

According to Mirriam Webster, then, religion may be (in the relevant senses):
 * 1) A commitment or devotion to faith² in (or observance relating to) an acknowledged ultimate reality
 * 2) A personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality
 * 3) An institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality
 * 4) A cause held to with ardor and faith²
 * 5) A principle held to with ardor and faith²
 * 6) A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith²

next
The original statement is just a bit of rhetorical judo. I've also seen "Darwinian Fundamentalism." Personally I find it humorous and hard to take seriously at all. It fits well into the overall Intelligent Design strategy. They already call ID religious beliefs scientific, so why not call also scientific ideas religious?

I am afraid our education system is so poor that it doesn't really matter much. Children with talent and ability in science are likely to find resources on their own. (like wikiversity?)  Average students are not interested and if as adults they join fundamentalist religions, it won't matter what they were taught in school. Cuvtixo 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I wonder if it would be constructive for Wikiversity to just go ahead and create pages for an investigation of the idea of intelligent design. If we showed the actual problems that arise when you try to use scientific methods to explore and test the idea that life was designed by an intelligent agent, would that provide a useful learning resource? --JWSchmidt 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If it could avoid flame wars and still remain two-sided. The Jade Knight 05:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm skeptical about "two sidedness" of scientific investigations. Everyone should collaborate to test ideas by comparing hypotheses to reproducible observations. Yes, disputes arise within science, but everyone should have the same goal.....finding the descriptions of our world that fit best with what we can all observe. --JWSchmidt 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Flaming occurs in the field of Science as well as elsewhere—those Scientists who have one position, regardless of whether its right or wrong (and this is true today, as far as centuries of history show), do not easily accept theories that contradict their own. On the other hand, certain ID supporters have shown a particular willingness to flame members of the Science community, and criticize some established scientific theory.  I think most people coming to this project will have already made up their minds which of the two sides is correct, and that it will be very difficult to avoid flaming if both sides are present.  The Jade Knight 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Darwinism?
The word itself is pejorative. Evolution theory has changed vastly since Darwin and this word is almost 100% used by IDists & Creationists in order to further the idea that it is a religion. Also, this topic as is almost solely confined to the USA as far as I know (I'm in the UK). (apologies if this is in the wrong place - see talk page. TheresaWilson 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks Theresa. How do you see calling it "Darwinism" as a means of suggesting that it is a religion? Is it that "evolution" would be perceived as a scientific theory, but the fact that we can call it after someone makes it possible that we are following a pseudo-religious guru? For me (and I am also in the UK), I have never heard "Darwinism" being used, but I often hear references to "Darwinian", which refers to the ever-developmental, survival-of-the-fittest process that we associate with Darwin's theory of evolution. Cormaggio talk 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you examine words ending in "ism", few come to mind at the moment, but I'll give it some thought, I think that you will find that most are religious or pseudo-religious. (Buddhism, Hinduism, spiritualism off the top) IDists/Creationists use a similar construction to attempt to equate Evolution(ism) with their beliefs in order to demonstrate their point. This is especially true in the USA where there is a legislated division between Church & State. Their reasoning appears to be that: if evolution (Darwinism) can be shown to be a religion then their religion should be given equal opportunity. TheresaWilson 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As to why "Dawinism" rather than "Evolutionism" is used: it reminds everyone of Victorian times and allows the current thinking on evolution to be minimised. TheresaWilson 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. There are certainly more "isms" than simply those that denote religion - eg. postmodernism, positivism, tribalism, colonialism - though I would agree that they all reflect a cultural dimension of the world, and hence some sort of worldview. But it's interesting that Wikipedia acknowledges that the use of the word scientism is also used pejoratively. In fact, isn't "ism" itself sometimes used as a word in its own right to indicate a disdain for academic distinctions between things? (Eg. "Oh, it's just another ism".) Cormaggio talk 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wrong in tying -ism to religion - your cultural ref is much nearer. See -ism* wherein: "In the United States of the mid-nineteenth century, the phrase "the isms" was used as a collective derogatory term ....". The suffix still promotes a less than approving aura to its subject. *(couldn't wikilink to "-ism" for some reason) TheresaWilson 05:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Interwikilink fixed - you can see syntax in edit mode, or see Help:Interwiki linking.) So, it seems your observation adds a kind of meta-critique of this page. It also seems relevant to develop our materials on evolution, which are currently quite woeful. (See Category:Evolution.) Cormaggio talk 09:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Ha! mea culpa - I'd forgotten that I was trying to link to a different wiki) Unfortunately I have no qualifications, or indeed relevant experience, in evolution, or anything at all, so I'll probably just lurk for a while. TheresaWilson 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that any group could refer to others using "-isms", but be offended when it is labeled in an "-ism" itself. The Jade Knight 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, most 20th/21st century scientific thought on evolution refers to the Modern Synthesis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis, not Darwinism. Is there such a thing as "Modern Synthesisism" and if so, why doesn't anyone use the term? I think "because Modern Synthesism sounds silly" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Not everything is appropriately referred to as an -ism. For example, it would likewise be silly to refer to "peanut butter and honey sandwichism." 71.156.97.199 22:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Science as religion/Darwinism


text: Category:Human biology

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Human biology


text:
User talk:Rich richie~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Rich richie. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Rich richie~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rich richie~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Smthngsimple

title: User talk:Smthngsimple


text: User talk:MjVP13

title: User talk:MjVP13


text: User talk:Libripens

title: User talk:Libripens


text: User talk:Sikhmd

title: User talk:Sikhmd


text: User talk:Yus smkj

title: User talk:Yus smkj


text:
User talk:Xtremeaiy~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Xtremeaiy. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Xtremeaiy~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xtremeaiy~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Firebird~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Firebird. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Firebird~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Firebird~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Ben Thornton

title: User talk:Ben Thornton


text:
Template:Nav3

< <  <

title: Template:Nav3


text:
Template:Nav

<

title: Template:Nav


text: Category:School of Mathematics

title: Category:School of Mathematics


text: Category:Navigational templates

title: Category:Navigational templates


text: Category:Poetry

title: Category:Poetry


text: Category:Writing

title: Category:Writing


text: Category:TOC templates

title: Category:TOC templates


text:
Category:Stubs

See also: Wikiversity Maintenance Hub -> Page creation requests -> Stub -> Category:Stubs

title: Category:Stubs


text: Category:Bosnian

title: Category:Bosnian


text: Category:Croatian

title: Category:Croatian


text: Category:Arabic

title: Category:Arabic


text: Category:Archival templates

title: Category:Archival templates


text: Category:English language

title: Category:English language


text: Category:Japanese

title: Category:Japanese


text: Category:Latin

title: Category:Latin


text: Category:Template templates

title: Category:Template templates


text: Category:User warning templates

title: Category:User warning templates


text: Category:Wikiversity header templates

title: Category:Wikiversity header templates


text: User talk:Camerabloke

title: User talk:Camerabloke


text:
User talk:Jennjenn~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jennjenn. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jennjenn~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jennjenn~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Pianist~enwikiversity

Music
Hi Pianist! Thanks for your note here. I look forward to collaborating with you too! --HappyCamper 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pianist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pianist~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pianist~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Kogulan~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kogulan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kogulan~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kogulan~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Josh.randes

title: User talk:Josh.randes


text: Category:Elvish

title: Category:Elvish


text: Category:General talk header templates

title: Category:General talk header templates


text: User:Soulaegis~enwikiversity

title: User:Soulaegis~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Senthryl

 Hello, you've reached Senthryl's talk page! If you would like to leave a message, you can create a new section, or add to an existing one.

Web Design/The Structure of HTML
Hi there, Thanks for clarifying the XHTML section on this page. At the time I couldn't think of how to best explain it. If we are to cover XHTML in more detail, where do you think would be the best place to do so? --Draicone (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We might consider re-organizing some articles before attempting to write tutorials for XHTML. For example, right now HTML is seemingly being covered through two separate areas (Computer Programming and Web Design), both of which are topics included in the school of Computer Science.  I think it would make more sense if we tried to split web design from web development by giving each their own topic.  If we removed all web related stuff from Computer Programming, and removed all code related stuff from Web Design, we would be able to create a new topic for Web Development.  All of the coding details for various languages such as tutorials for CSS, HTML, XHTML, etc. would be covered in Web Development, whereas the actual design principles (for the artistic side of things) would be covered in the currently existing Web Design.  With these two aspects separated, it would give a more logical flow for the placement of articles.  There has already been some discussion on this matter in the Computer Programming Talk Page.  I'm new to Wikis, so I'm not sure what process one would have to go through in order to get these topics clearly separated, but the order I just explained makes much more sense to me than the current scheme does... // Senthryl 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is even more to be added to Topic:Web Development. I created the topic and have begun to flesh out the items I think should be there.  I have do create an analysis of various web development technologies for my job and am going to use Wikiversity as the way to disseminate the information.  Let me know what you think. Eshafoshaf 13:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Red links turn blue
I noticed on your user page the list of pages you plan to make, and that I have knowledge in that area. Would you mind if I went and wrote up the page about the use of API functions in VB6? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead =) // Senthryl 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Senthryl


text: User:Trevor MacInnis/CURRENTMINUTEANDSECOND


text: Template:User custodian

title: Template:User custodian


text:
User:Aaronsharpe~enwikiversity

My name is Aaron Sharpe and I live in England. I am currently taking AS levels in Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Mathematics, I recieved A* grades at GCSE in those subjects.

title: User:Aaronsharpe~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Aaronsharpe~enwikiversity

Invitation
Dear user of Wikiversity,

Do you like to join a reading club, where you can read and discuss literature? Reading clubs could have active and inactive participants. Active participants could be required to edit on a regularly basis untill a deadline is reached and another topic can be chosen for reading and discussing. Hopefully, reading clubs can ensure a social network on Wikiversity of people cooperating with eachother and becoming friends while discussing knowledge.--Daanschr 09:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Aaronsharpe. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Aaronsharpe~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aaronsharpe~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Mscale

title: User talk:Mscale


text: Template:W

title: Template:W


text:
Category theory

This department is a part of the Subdivision of Higher Algebra

Department description
Category theory is a relatively new birth that arose from the study of cohomology in topology and quickly broke free of its shackles to that area and became a powerful tool that currently challenges set theory as a foundation of mathematics, although category theory requires more mathematical experience to appreciate and cannot in its current state be reasonably used to introduce mathematics. It has also found many applications in the physical sciences. The goal of this department is to familiarize the student with the theorems and goals of modern category theory. Prerequisites to full appreciation of this area of study includes knowledge of topology up to basic homology theory, and some basic idea of cohomology.

Department news

 * Monday, August 28, 2006 - Department founded!

Learning materials and learning projects
Introduction to Category Theory

Offsite Learning Materials

 * Saunders Mac Lane, the Knight of Mathematics
 * Bibliography for Category Theory
 * Ronald Brown. 2010. "Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: filtered spaces, crossed complexes and cubical homotopy groupoids." textbook
 * G.M. Kelly, F.A.A. 2005."Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory"
 * P. J. Higgins. 2005 . "Categories and Groupoids.", TAC Reprint pp.195.
 * Ibid.- Secondary source
 * Andrea Asperti and Giuseppe Longo. 1991."Categories, Types and Structures: Category Theory for the working computer scientist", pp.301.

Recommended Reading Material
If you want to learn the way mathematicians do, you will need to read and complete the exercises in at least one of the following books. While this site provides a supportive community of peers and teachers, nothing beats having a well-organized and well-written text that you can study anywhere to learn from the masters. Mathematics is not a spectator-sport. You must do mathematics to learn it.

For those with less background:
 * Robert Goldblatt. (2006). Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic (Revised Edition). Dover Publications. ISBN 0486450260. This book is simultaneously gently paced, broad and often deep. It introduces category theory, contrasts it with set theory and then develops logic in the language of category theory. However, unlike most books that deal with such matters, the book introduces the concepts informally. Any formal treatment is reserved for later in the book or relegated to more advanced textbooks. One essentially gets a broad understanding of some of the deepest areas in mathematics at a heavily discounted price.

 * Barr & Wells. (1999). Categories for Computing Science (third edition). Centre de Recherches Mathématiques. ISBN 2921120313.  Info including ordering here.  A mostly gentle pace, 100s of solved exercises and reasonable price tag make this one a must-have for people without a formal teacher.

 * Lawvere & Schanuel. (1997). Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521010608

 * B.C. Pierce (1991) Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists MIT Press. ISBN 0262660717. (Short and concise introduction.  Probably not enough exercises for most people to really learn it from.)

And requiring somewhat more:
 * Lawvere & Rosebrugh. (2003). Sets for Mathematics Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521478170 (set theory axiomatized through category theory, for advanced undergraduates and beginning graduates; more advanced and then Lawvere & Schanuel.  Starts fairly easy but seems to get harder.)

 * Awodey, Steven (2006) Category Theory (Oxford Logic Guides 49) Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198568614 (very elegant, from what AA has seen of the no-longer-available downloadable pdf version, but perhaps a bit demanding for teacherless beginners with modest talent).

 * Mac Lane, Saunders (September 1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer. ISBN 0-387-98403-8. (on the whole, not for beginners to read consecutively, but some of the discussions, such as the one of adjunctions, are very useful even for novices. '10% comprehension of Mac Lane is worth 90% of almost anybody else', I read somewhere ).

Wikipedia

 * Category theory

Active participants
The histories of Wikiversity pages indicate who the active participants are. If you are an active participant in this department, you can list your name here (this can help small departments grow and the participants communicate better; for large departments a list of active participants is not needed).

 * User:Bci21
 * User:X

title: Category theory


text:
User:Digitalme/Sig

 digital  _  me

title: User:Digitalme/Sig


text:
User talk:Arrd~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Arrd. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Arrd~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arrd~enwikiversity


text:
User:Piotrus

I am Piotr Konieczny, a Teaching Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh.

Projects I am involved in:
 * School:Sociology and wikibooks:Subject:Sociology

My teaching activities:
 * User:Piotrus/Sociology of the family and more on Wikipedia (w:User:Piotrus/Teaching)

My shared teaching materials:
 * User:Piotrus/Teaching materials

I am also a Wikipedia:Ambassadors, meaning I am glad to help you figure out how to use wikis and Wikipedia in teaching.

You may read some of my papers, including one on "Teaching with Wikipedia" ('07, updated version in the works), and download a workshop-presentation on "Teaching with Wikipedia" (WikiSym'10) from the links here.

Other:
 * User:Piotrus/Questions
 * Wikipedia/syllabi

title: User:Piotrus


text:
User talk:Piotrus

Sociology of the Family
Do you want that imported over, or left at wikibooks?--Rayc 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's back at wb now.-- digital  _  me   22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Syllabi
"there is no Category:Syllabi - which I find strange" <-- As far as I know, you are the first person with a syllabus for use at Wikiversity. Most people are working on modular learning materials and learning projects that do not correspond to conventional courses...they are more like lessons. You are welcome to add any type of learning resource to Wikiversity, just remember that Wikiversity tries not to duplicate the content of other projects like Wikibooks. I responded to your other questions at the help desk. --JWSchmidt 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Crossword1
User:Piotrus/Crossword1 is generating error messages on Special:LintErrors/fostered. If this is a resource you still want, it needs to be cleaned up with current, body-only, valid HTML. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Volunteering to help with WikiJournal of Humanities
Yes! We are definitely in need of more editors for the journal. The main tasks of editors are to coordinate peer review process (even if the article subject may be slightly outside your field of expertise) and vote on an article's acceptance. In our tracking page, you can see that Humanities journal needs more help with clearing the submission backlog. If you think you can lend a hand, please consider applying to join the editorial board (link is in the editors page). Thanks!  OhanaUnited  Talk page  15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @OhanaUnited Done. Btw, I am quite worried about WikiJournal of Humanities/Potential upcoming articles . The journal has plenty of editors in theory (I count 24!) but are we unable to find reviewers articles for 3+ years? This raises the issue of whether editors are active; I mean, if I couldn't find a reviewer for an article for several month, I'd consider simply reviewing it myself. We should have no trouble producing prompt reviews from our editorial board with 24 editors, IF people were active... Is there a discussion place for editors? Is there a way to verify if editors are active in any capacity supportng the project? Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, there are some inactive editors and we recently enacted bylaw changes to tackle this issue. COVID took a hard hit especially on the social science and humanities area, combined with reduction in university funding and precarious employment contract for many in this field which leads to well-intentioned volunteers unable to find spare time to contribute while they focus on not losing their jobs. The number of active editors in the Humanities is definitely less than 24. But whether we remove them or not, inactive editors won't solicit or conduct reviews. There is a mailing list for each journal's editorial board members. Many of us identified Humanities journal in need of additional assistance, and we have assigned technical editors to provide support with this journal. We are continuously seeking new editors to help revitalize this board.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  05:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @OhanaUnited I'll be happy to help, but I'd think tackling the reviews is #1 priority to make sure we have some production workflow going, no? I mean, if we publicly disclose that we have articles in review stalled since 2019, this looks very bad and hardly encourages anyone to contribute. Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you're correct. We have hired some technical editors and dedicated a few individuals specifically to Humanities to offload some of the tasks that editorial board volunteers couldn't find time to handle. We have one article that is very close to publishing. Our meeting minutes are posted on meta. You can see that we are aware of this issue and discussed about it for several months (since Feb. 2022). Unfortunately most people who attended the meetings are experts in science or medicine, and thus they are (including myself) uncomfortable to step into the humanities board to pitch in and their professional circles don't really have many connections with colleagues in the humanities field to recruit them to editorial board or know who to contact for reviews. We are doing a number of outreach this year (including Wikimania in August and WikiConference North America this weekend) to recruit more volunteers interested in humanities.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @OhanaUnited Glad to hear that. While my editorial board application is pending, I'd be happy to step in as a reviewer and review some of the articles that need a review, From what I see at WikiJournal_User_Group/Editorial_guidelines, peer reviewers have to be invited, so it doesn't appear I could just step in and review some articles I feel like reviewing, however. I also wonder about the status of, for example, Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/The Holocaust in Slovakia. I see on it's talk it has effectively one accept and one request for a minor revision (adding information on Roma). There are no replies by the author; and there is no public information whether anyone from the editorial board or staff (if we have staff) has reached out to the author, so it's hard to say what we are wating there for? On another note, IMHO WikiJournal Preprints/Under a mysterious mute marquee of “silentio universi” is a short unreferenced essay that qualifies for a quick desk rejection and doesn't warrant reviewing. Where can I suggest such an action to be taken by the current board? Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus My apologies for somehow not receiving the notification of your reply. I only stumbled upon your page just now while sending an email to you about our WikiJournal monthly meeting on tomorrow. I have declined WikiJournal Preprints/Under a mysterious mute marquee of “silentio universi” per your suggestion. As for WikiJournal Preprints/The Holocaust in Slovakia, I noticed that the author (User:Buidhe) is still actively editing. Since I don't have access to the Humanities editorial board mailing list to find out the submission info, is it possible if you can reach out to the author and see whether they would still like to continue with the submission?  OhanaUnited  Talk page  14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @OhanaUnited Thanks for following up. I think Buidhe will see the ping and join the discussion if she wishes to do so. Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally forgot about this. I remember I looked up sources for Roma in Slovakia and was having trouble finding what I was looking for. Now I am much busier than I was but I will go back and try to fix up the article so it can be published, I just feel so bad that I spaced it. Buidhe (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

More editorial board applications
I saw your note. Just want to flag to your attention that we currently have two open editor applications at the moment. I hope that will spread out the workload better and ensure better continuity in the Humanities board whenever one becomes busy. Please feel free to voice your comments on either (or both!) applications.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  05:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Piotrus


text:
Chemical element

A chemical element is a substance that cannot be changed into any other substance by a normal chemical reaction.

An element is made up of atoms containing electrons, protons and neutrons. Each atom in an element will contain the same number of protons and electrons, for example every carbon atom has six protons and six electrons.

The periodic table of the elements contains lists all of the elements in order of their number of protons and is laid out so that the elements in each group (vertical column) will have similar properties.

Just because two substances contain the same atoms does not always mean that they will have the same properties. Graphite and diamonds are both made completely from carbon atoms, but the way in which they join with each other means that the have different properties.

Atoms of the same element may also contain different numbers of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes.

quiz
{A chemical element is a substance that ________ be changed into any other substance by a normal chemical reaction. + cannot - can - might - should
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! A chemical element cannot be changed into any other substance by a normal chemical reaction.
 * Incorrect. A chemical element is a substance that remains unchanged in a normal chemical reaction.
 * Incorrect. The definition is definitive, not conditional.
 * Incorrect. The definition is not based on a recommendation.

{Each atom in an element will contain the same number of ________ and ________. + protons | electrons - electrons | neutrons - protons | neutrons - neutrons | electrons
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! Each atom in an element has the same number of protons and electrons.
 * Incorrect. While atoms have electrons and neutrons, the defining characteristic of an element is the number of protons and electrons.
 * Incorrect. Neutrons can vary in isotopes of the same element.
 * Incorrect. The defining characteristic of an element is the number of protons and electrons.

{The periodic table of the elements lists all of the elements in order of their number of ________. + protons - electrons - neutrons - atoms
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! The periodic table is organized based on the number of protons.
 * Incorrect. The periodic table is not organized based on the number of electrons.
 * Incorrect. The periodic table is not organized based on the number of neutrons.
 * Incorrect. The periodic table is organized based on elements, not individual atoms.

{Graphite and diamonds are both made completely from ________ atoms. + carbon - hydrogen - oxygen - nitrogen
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! Both graphite and diamonds are forms of carbon.
 * Incorrect. Graphite and diamonds are not made of hydrogen atoms.
 * Incorrect. Graphite and diamonds are not made of oxygen atoms.
 * Incorrect. Graphite and diamonds are not made of nitrogen atoms.

{Atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons are called ________. + isotopes - ions - molecules - compounds
 * type="[]"}
 * Correct! Atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons are isotopes.
 * Incorrect. Ions are atoms or molecules with a net electric charge.
 * Incorrect. Molecules are made up of two or more atoms.
 * Incorrect. Compounds are made up of atoms of different elements.

title: Chemical element


text:
Wikiversity:Major portals

There are Wikiversity portals that provide user-friendly introductions to learning resources in mainstream subject areas. Each portal also provides links to Wikiversity schools and other content development projects in the "Topic:" namespace.

 * Portal:Engineering and Technology
 * Portal:Humanities
 * Portal:Interdisciplinary Studies
 * Portal:Life Sciences
 * Portal:Mathematics
 * Portal:Media
 * Portal:Physical Sciences
 * Portal:Practical Arts and Sciences
 * Portal:Professions
 * Portal:Social Sciences

Each of these portals has an associated category that is used to organize subject pages. These organizational units compare to "faculties". "Faculty" is term that is used to refer to organizational divisions at universities. However, Wikiversity does not have any "faculty" reference. Wikiversity has participants who collaborate in the editing of Wikiversity pages.

In addition, you can use the following portals as educational guides:
 * Portal:Learning Projects
 * Portal:Learning Materials
 * Portal:Education
 * Portal:Wiki Scholar

The function of portals
Wikiversity portals should help quickly guide Wikiversity visitors to Wikiversity learning resources in the main namespace. At the start of Wikiversity, portals can also function as places to invite participation at Wikiversity content development and improvement projects in the "School:" and "Topic:" namespaces.

title: Wikiversity:Major portals


text:
PHP/Introduction

PHP (recursive acronym for "PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor"—formerly the acronym for "Personal Home Page") is a server-side scripting language designed for use in web based applications. As it is a server side scripting language, its use requires a web server installed, configured and enabled with PHP.

Introduction
This is a course designed to teach PHP by example (and eventually assignment) to anyone willing to learn. Bear in mind that this course is still a work in progress and is by no means comprehensive in its current state. In addition, it is fairly fast paced and it is suggested participants utilize various other learning resources to assist them in their learning.

If you feel that a certain section lacks detail, or there is a blatant error in a statement, change it! Alternatively, point it out on the talk page and an experienced user will take a look at it.

For a more complete tutorial, visit: http://www.w3schools.com/php/default.asp

Prerequisites

 * Some sort of Introduction to Programming
 * Whatever basic courses are available at Computer Programming
 * Strongly recommended that participants have access to a PHP enabled webserver or install XAMPP / WAMP / LAMP on their system to practice

Basic Syntax
When PHP parses a file (web servers are generally configured to have PHP parse files with the .php extension), it looks for an opening tag and a closing tag and then interprets the code between the two: PHP will output everything that is not contained within an opening tag (commonly , however the shorter <? tag is no longer recommended as it conflicts with XML opening tags) and a closing tag (?> or ) exactly as it is written. All statements in PHP should end with a semicolon; most of the time only one statement will occur on each line. This denotes to the PHP interpreter that the statement it has read is complete and that it should anticipate the next (or the ?> tag or EOF, end of file). This is because different text editors handle new lines differently.

The Notepad utility on Microsoft Windows is notorious for being terrible with UNIX end of line compatibility. This is because Notepad expects \r\n, both a newline and a carriage return, while UNIX-based systems only insert the \n newline character. Notepad will open a UNIX-style text file and show the "empty box" unrecognized character instead of the expected line break. Using a more advanced text editor will alleviate these conflicts; the UNIX style produces a smaller script file because each newline only requires 2 bytes (one character) to break the line instead of 4 bytes. For large files, this could make a difference but only as far as storage on your server goes, because the PHP code is never sent to the user's browser, only the result of the PHP commands that were executed; the user will get nothing more than HTML, ideally.

Terminating statements with the semicolon allows coders to squeeze together small blocks of code on the same line. For example, the following is acceptable: And will work just the same as the example below. Even though this code will be interpreted correctly by the server, it is generally considered poor style

Variables
see also /Variables/

Variables are locations in memory where information is stored. PHP scripts can contain variables, which are denoted with the $ at the start of their unique identifier (two variables with the same identifier are, essentially, the same variable). Unlike many low end languages, variables in PHP need not be declared and defined—when a variable is used, PHP automatically creates it and assigns it a null value if it does not already exist. Take a look at this example: Notice the difference from the first example—in this, we assign the sentence This is being parsed. to the variable $message and then output it. This may seem like a pointless example, but rest assured, variables have a very important purpose in PHP. In addition, variables in PHP are not statically typed, meaning that there is only one generic type for scalar values (numbers and strings), and another 2 types for aggregate structures (arrays and hashes ("associative arrays")).

Arrays
An array is a special variable that stores one or more values in a single variable. If you have a list of items, storing them in single variables could look like this: $item1="item-name1"; $item2=" item-name2"; $item3=" item-name3";

An array can hold all your variable values under a single name and you can access the values by referring to the array name. Each element in the array has its own index so that it can be easily accessed. In PHP, there are three kind of arrays (PHP tutorial to learn more about kinds of arrays):

 * Numeric array – An array with a numeric index
 * Associative array – An array where each ID key is associated with a value
 * Multidimensional array – An array containing one or more arrays

Alternatively, Arrays can be defined like a set of variables and values, combined together under one common name. For example, if we have 3 variables: An array can be made with these three variables and their values with a more common name like "eatables". So if we create an array, it will be something like: OR Now, as discussed above, the 3 kinds of arrays in PHP are as follows this:

1. Numeric array: the array with numeric index. Example: To access users from this array, we use: $users[0], $users[1] & so on. Hence this is called a numeric array.

2. Associative array: array with strings as the index. Example: To access data, we use: $eatables['fruit'], $eatables['vegetable'] etc. Thus eatables is an Associative array where a meaningful or non-meaningful string (variable name) is associated with each value.

3. Multidimensional array: an array of arrays. Example: To access 'banana', you refer to $food['fruits'][0], or for 'carrot', you use $food['vegetables'][1]. Thus food has more than 1 dimension (or level), and is a multidimensional array. The only limit to the number of dimensions is the size of the memory stack available to your program. (The same goes for the number of elements to an array.)

Constants
see also /Constants/

Constants are generally immutable (unchangeable) values supplied by the PHP execution environment. They are used to pass various bits of information which might be useful at runtime. To see what some of these constants and "environment variables" are, create a file named  on your PHP web server with the following contents: This will also give other information about your system. Note that most of the environment variables are given in a special associative array,

Strings
Strings in PHP can be specified in one of two ways. Using normal strings, the preprocessor will also parse any variable names that are encountered, substituting their value:
 * String literals—single-quoted strings:
 * Normal strings—double-quoted strings:

Escaping Strings
Depending on how you have declared a string, and how the data in the string is formatted, it may be necessary to escape certain characters. Take the following code, for example: There is no problem with the declaration of $str, but PHP will throw an error upon encountering the $str2 declaration. Can you see why this is?

As far as PHP is concerned, the contents of $str2 stopped when it encountered the second ' (single quote). After that, the interpreter found some stray characters followed by an orphan ' (single quote) with no closing quote.

To overcome this problem, we use PHP's escape character, the backslash. The above variable declaration is now valid.

Escaping can also be used when wanting to output a special character, such as \n (newline), in a Normal String Declaration. Can you think of a way we could escape \n to allow us to output '\n' as opposed to a newline?

Of course, it is exactly the same as escaping the single quote, we apply a backslash to \n, turning it into \\n, thus escaping the initial backslash that was portraying it as a special character, and representing it literally.

Comments
PHP supports commenting code for ease of viewing by humans. There are two common ways of commenting: comment blocks and line commenting.

Comment blocks
Comment blocks work by denoting a range from one point to another within a script as a comment, which is then ignored entirely by the PHP interpreter. They can be inserted anywhere (although it is good practise to give them their own few lines in the script for readability's sake) and are denoted by two special characters: / and *. Take a look at this example: Notice that the order of the / and * alternate. To designate an area in a script as a comment block, simply begin it with a /* and end with a */. Comments can, as mentioned above, be placed anywhere like this: Notice that comment blocks are placed between the echo function and its parameters, within the function call for echo itself (ec/* ... */ho), within the string passed to the echo function and just before the end of line declaration (with the semicolon).

Line commenting
Line commenting is much like the comment block, except that it only affects a particular line from a given point onwards, cannot be ended until the next line and uses the // or # operator. Examine the following example: Anything after a // on a line is considered a comment, ignored entirely by the interpreter and meaningless to anything but a human examining the code. Remember that the use of echo 'This will NOT be parsed.'; above is totally immaterial; the word echo will not be treated as a function call. A // can also be added to the end of a line (must be after the semicolon if there is a function call on the same line) and anything after it will be commented, like so:

Functions and arguments
PHP is well known for its extensive library of built-in functions. A function in PHP is a set of code predefined to be called by a particular keyword, either built into PHP's numerous libraries, or defined by the person writing the script within the code. A function can be declared like this: In the same script, the function can then be called like this: This will output 'Stuff' (without the quotation marks). Functions can have arguments which can be passed when the function is called. An argument is a variable that you pass directly to the function. Here is an example of a simple function that takes a name as an argument, and outputs a nice greeting: Note the use of the period here, between "'Hi '" and "$name". This will concatenate the two variables together.

We can call this function in a couple of ways, either by passing a defined variable to it: Or, we can just pass the name directly to the function, also called a 'literal string': Finally, we can also pass multiple arguments to a function. To do this, just separate each variable with a comma:

Assignment
Now it's your turn to get your hands dirty! Create a function that takes a name, an age, and a height, and outputs a sentence using all of these variables. Also, call the function using a combination of variables and literals.

Check your answer here: /PHP Assignment Answers/, and remember, in programming there are a thousand ways to do anything, so don't worry if your script doesn't exactly match the answer! Just make sure it works.

Learning Sessions

 * Responding to HTML forms with PHP: Getting started using PHP with web forms
 * Generating a receipt with PHP: Calculating totals and discounts from your web form
 * PHP challenges: Building your PHP skills towards storing data in a database

title: PHP/Introduction


text: User talk:Sarahbee

title: User talk:Sarahbee


text: User talk:Billcr

title: User talk:Billcr


text: User talk:Jasendorf

title: User talk:Jasendorf


text: User talk:Jayasreeb

title: User talk:Jayasreeb


text: User talk:Mscheuble

title: User talk:Mscheuble


text: User talk:Cscheuble

title: User talk:Cscheuble


text:
User talk:Vineesh~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Vineesh. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Vineesh~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vineesh~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Agoswami~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Agoswami. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Agoswami~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Agoswami~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Doug007

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Doug007. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Doug007~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Doug007


text: User talk:Alexlm

title: User talk:Alexlm


text:
User talk:Dirigible~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dirigible. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dirigible~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dirigible~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Rjowen13

title: User talk:Rjowen13


text: User talk:Divcon347

title: User talk:Divcon347


text: User talk:Tamershahin

title: User talk:Tamershahin


text: User talk:Gaurav05

title: User talk:Gaurav05


text: User talk:Vsraman5

title: User talk:Vsraman5


text: User talk:The wub

title: User talk:The wub


text:
User talk:Sriindiay~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sriindiay. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sriindiay~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sriindiay~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Taida

title: User talk:Taida


text:
User talk:Kw0~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kw0. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kw0~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kw0~enwikiversity


text: User talk:Robhingle

title: User talk:Robhingle


text:
User talk:BethRitterGuth~enwikiversity

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikiversity!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox, and try to follow our rules.
 * Check out our help page if you need additional editing help.

You will find more resources at the Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Colloquium, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page.

Good luck! - Trevor MacInnis 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called BethRitterGuth. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name BethRitterGuth~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:BethRitterGuth~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Clari~enwikiversity

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Clari. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Clari~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clari~enwikiversity


text:
Astronomy outline

Astronomy is the scientific study of the Universe and its contents.

The Wikiversity Astronomy textbook is divided into several units typical of introductory texts at the university level. These units can be presented out of order, or some may be omitted:

I. Positional Astronomy

This is the study of constellations, asterisms, apparent diurnal and annual motions of the sun and stars, motion and appearance of the moon, lunar and solar eclipses, lunar and solar calendars, and stellar coordinate systems. Experts in this field display a solid understanding of the three-dimensional character of the solar system; the typical size and speed scales involved; the relationship between angular size, actual size, and distance; and the vocabulary needed to describe positions of astronomical objects. This unit provides the background required to understand the historical revolutions in astronomical knowledge described in the next unit.

II. Historical Astronomy

This is the study of the history of astronomy, in particular ancient (typically cross-cultural) astronomy and its transition to the modern viewpoint. The works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton are studied with an emphasis on the evolution from the geocentric to the heliocentric viewpoint. The collection study of light is introduced, both its intensity and its color content, allowing later units to rely on the crucially important concept of spectroscopy. Historical and modern telescopes are described. Experts in this field are able to discuss not only that the earth revolves around the sun, but also how we know this to be true. III. The Lives and Deaths of Stars

This is the study of the formation, life, and death of stars. We describe the balance between the inward gravitational forces acting on a star with the outward forces that characterize that star. With this model we study the nebulae in which stars are born, main-sequence stars, red giant and supergiant stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, supernovae, and the nebulae produced in stellar death. Experts in this field typically see the stellar life and death sequence as a recycling process in which galaxies become more deeply enriched with heavier elements.

IV. Galaxies and Cosmology

This is the study of the largest observed systems in the universe and their contents. Discussion of systems much larger than the solar system immediately requires the introduction of the topic of dark matter, the (apparently) unaccounted for material that binds galaxies together gravitationally. The evolution of galaxies is treated and the quasar introduced. Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe is combined with Einstein's theory of gravity to describe the past (and predict the future) of the universe as a whole. Experts in this field juggle unconfirmed theories (Inflation), tantalizing data (accelerating expansion), and spectacular observations (relic heat from the big bang) in an attempt to produce a grand narrative of the universe.

V. Planets and Moons

This is the study of the small bodies and systems that orbit stars. Planets display enormous diversity in their composition, thermodynamic properties, geological activity, and atmospheres due to a number of factors we'll study here. We will study the planets and moons in our solar system in depth before moving on to the multitudes of planets discovered orbiting other stars.

In addition to these particular units of study, several overarching themes present themselves in the study of astronomy. First, that the universe is describable and understandable . Second, that astronomy as a science is driven through observation rather than experiment, and is therefore vulnerable to a different set of systematic faults than physics or chemistry. Third, that astronomy is a wonderful adventure for humankind, filled with joy and promise.

[Would recommend the original text, below, be moved to subchapters.]

Note: Contains theoretical ideas and conjectures. --Eoin O Liathain

99.9% of the visible Universe is in the form of Astrophysical plasma, the same stuff that makes up the stars fills interstellar space. Visible matter makes up only 4% of the mass / gravity budget of the Universe; the rest is in the form of Dark matter 23% and a mysterious force that is pulling the Universe apart at an ever increasing pace called Dark energy 73%. Though we cannot directly detect it, and we do not know what it is made of, thought there are competing theories (see Axions(probably the most likely, though it could be a combination of theories) Super symmetry, and Strange matter) we can detect the effects of Dark matter on ordinary matter through gravitational interactions; galaxies seem to be built around pockets of dark matter like bricks of a house. At this point, if you have done the math you probably realize that the stuff you see around, regular, non plasma, baryonic matter is extremely rare in the Universe. This matter makes up about 0.0004% of the matter in the Universe. The Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and may be finite or infinite, but has been estimated by a group of leading astophysists to be 151 light years wide, though this is debated; the most commonly accepted theory for how the Universe was created is the big bang, or more particularly the hot big bang it also fits nicely with nuclear physics and particle physics by explaining why no elements heavier than Beryllium were created during the big bang, and also explains the abundance of Deuterium (an isotope of Hydrogen with a neutron in the nucleus, accounts for approximately 1% of the Hydrogen) in the Universe, since it fuses easily into Helium 4; the reason is that the universe started off at an infinite temperature and density and expanded and cooled very quickly. --Bone Spencer 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Stars
Stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium and give off energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation by fusing elements into progressively heavier elements until it reaches iron (which has one of the highest binding energies) and no more energy can be obtained through nuclear fusion.

--Bone Spencer 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Astronomy outline


text: User talk:Josearboledajr

title: User talk:Josearboledajr


text: User talk:Rajan787

title: User talk:Rajan787


text: User talk:Ral315

title: User talk:Ral315


text: User talk:Rabarcus

title: User talk:Rabarcus


text: User talk:Sanapi

title: User talk:Sanapi