text:
User talk:Andrewa/archive4

''This is an archive of a continuing discussion. The headings have been inserted into the archive as link anchor points, and were not part of the discussion at the time. In most but not all cases they replace a horizontal line. It should also be noted that parts of this discussion were pasted from Talk:Time Cube/User talk archive, which makes for some strange indenting at times, and which together with my correspondent's habit of not dating their contributions makes for a tangled tale. Andrewa 22:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)''

Hello Andrewa, you may recall our discussion on the subject of Time Cube that occurred a few months ago. Upon reviewing this discussion, I noticed that many important points went unresolved when you chose to discontinue it on the basis of "Mutual respect" "declining rapidly". But you said "If you would ever like to resume, under an assumption of mutual trust, then I could be interested. We should probably have a cooling-off period first" -- so now the "cooling-off period" is over and it is time to resume the debate. To evaluate significant aspects of Time Cube and also to evaluate your religious beliefs, let us please continue the discussion threads below:

 * G'day

 * Glad to resume. I'm sure I can improve on some of what I said last time. Agree that there's been an adequate cooling-off period.

 * Two things.

 * Firstly, I find it difficult to tell what below is from the archives and what is your new text. I had a go at refactoring it to make this clear, referring to the archives as I went, but it's something you could do far more easily than I can, so I went back to the original. So perhaps you could bold your new contributions? Then we can take it from there. We wouldn't then need to bold further additions, just these starting points. I'd also like to remove the big gaps, but they help you to find your place leave them there.

 * OK I have bolded the new text below, which includes what I posted at the 0th indent level and also (...) which denotes content that I removed due to it not requiring further discussion. Yes remove the gaps if you want.

 * Secondly, perhaps we can (both) avoid presupposing that the other guy is wrong? When you describe me as being confused, doesn't it occur to you that from my point of view, you are the confused one? So let's try to avoid such prejudicial terms.

 * OK.

 * These are just suggestions, neither is non-negotiable. Andrewa 06:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Thank you for your responses, they help a lot. I've bolded and zero-indented my responses on this occasion only. This will give us clear starting points for new discussions. I've also made the paragraphs short, and signed them all. None of this needs to happen in subsequent responses.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Just notifying that I have added gaps in places where my new comments are on the same indent level as old material directly below.

 * OK. I've put in some horizontal lines instead, to show the bottom of an active string. I hope that's OK. It would IMO be better to sign the new stuff where there is any doubt. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What you describe as a rotating cube doesn't rotate as a cube at all. It rotates around only one axis of symmetry. If this is the only rotation considered, then this ignores one of the essential symmetries of the cube, and is where the (invalid) connection between four and the cube seems to come from.

(No response required here as I understand it.) Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

What the theory is

 * OK Andrewa, here is a better organised version of the answer. It is up to you to identify the points you don't agree with, so that I can explain them further.

 * CASE 1: A sphere is as a fully rotated Cube.
 * CASE 2: If the Earth wasn't rotating, it would be (approximately) a perfect Sphere. We may say however, that as a 3-dimensional object, it exists within the boundaries of a Cube. See Case 1; I will now refer to it as a Cube. Note that the orientation of the non-rotating cube is undefined.
 * CASE 3: When the Earth rotates, dilation occurs along its rotational axis, such that the radius is less at the poles than at the equator. We may say that the Top and the Bottom of the Cube have now been defined as the North and South Poles, and that the Cube has been dilated.
 * CASE 4: Rotation is actually a fundamental property of all gravitational bodies, as they all originate from rotational vortices; but the fact is that if they stopped rotating, they would form undilated Cubes. Thus we must refer to them as Cubes rather than rectangular prisms, in order to acknowledge Cubes as the perfect form.

 * Firstly, could you just clarify what you mean by "case"? It seems a rather strange use of the term. Andrewa 09:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh whoops, a typo. I meant to say SUITCASE! Hahahahahaha. No actually, here are the relevant definitions from dictionary.com: "A set of circumstances or a state of affairs; a situation"; "Actual fact; reality". Hopefully this will satisfy your word-pedantry, such that you can now respond to what I've written above.
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

'''Hmmmm. I don't propose to respond to allegations of pedantry, other than to say that I've had another look and I reject them. It may be that this discussion is in any case off to a better start below, so we can just drop this thread. Or is there perhaps something that you'd like to take further here?''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What I want you to respond to is my explanation of the Cube form, given in dot points above. To an extent, this is a separate issue from the 4/16 Rotation Principle so I suggest we discuss it here. (I didn't remove the clarification of "case" because otherwise you might have forgotten about it and I would have had to state it again).

 * I think I responded before. My objection to your use of case was not pedantry, it is a serious flaw in your expression of whatever it is you are trying to express. Your attempted humour is unhelpful too IMO, as is your quoting several definitions of case. You need to choose one sense, unless you are deliberately using ambiguity, which is a very useful poetical device but I suspect also unhelpful here. If it is deliberate, please explain it. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm just using "case" to identify the different points. This usage is perfunctory rather than descriptive so I don't think the exact meaning is particularly important. Out of the two definitions I gave, "Actual fact; reality" best matched my usage.

 * OK. So by case you mean proposition or assertion? Do you mind if I restate your whole argument into standard English? I have no wish to use such peculiar terminology and will probably get it wrong if I try. Or would you like to do it? Are there any other terms you are using in non-standard ways?

 * Yes you can restate the argument if you wish. If you are unsure about any other terms then ask, but I think they are all probably correct.

 * Please rest assured that I know a Cube is a box-like shape with 8 tricorners (3 90-degree angles each) and equal length, width and height.

 * Hmmm. Is that your definition of cube? It seems to confirm the pattern if so. Andrewa 11:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that this is an erroneous definition? If so, please correct it:

 * A cube is a box-like shape.
 * A cube has 8 tricorners. (By Tricorners I mean Vertices; Tricorners is a term coined by Gene Ray, referring to their relation to the number 3 -- a vertex on a Cube joins 3 edges and 3 sides.)
 * Each tricorner/vertex has 3 90-degree angles. A square has 4 90 degree angles, one in each vertex; a vertex of a Cube joins together 3 vertices from 3 of the Cube's square faces, therefore each of a Cube's vertices has 3 90-degree angles.
 * A cube has equal length, width and height.
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

'''It's not really a matter of error. The definition of a cube varies depending on the field of study. The word is already used in other technical senses, some of them more closely related to geometry than others, as are many other geometric terms such as ball in metric spaces. You are free to define it in this way if you wish, especially assuming this is consistent with previous writers in the field.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, do you agree with my geometric definition? If not, why?

 * It's not a matter of whether I agree with it. You are free to define technical terms in any way you like. As to whether this is a useful term, that's also up to you to demonstrate. It does seem fairly complicated to me, but perhaps that's necessary to support the structure you want to build on it. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Belief in God

 * Belief in God is irrational because there's no evidence supporting the theory.

 * If there is, then please state it.

 * Big subject. Where to start.

 * God is as real to me as anything else in the universe. But, as a mathematician, I'm used to having several equally valid models approximating the same experimental evidence. You can't see God if you choose not to. That's one of the meanings of faith.

 * You must take into account that Occam's Razor may resolve this multiplicity. When are you going to state the evidence supporting your belief in the JudeoChristian God?

 * Robert A. Heinlein stated in Time Enough for Love that it's the role of science to explain the Universe, and the role of religion to put man into the picture. I think that puts it pretty well.

 * I have a better idea than Robert Heinlein. People should stop believing fairytales and use science to explain EVERYTHING, including the existence of Homosapiens. Do you know what a Word Virus is?
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

'''Science cannot explain everything. In particular, it cannot explain science.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree with this. I think that it IS possible to use our knowledge gained through empirical thought to determine how empirical thought evolved (and also to explain the existence of humans). Can you explain why you think this is impossible?

 * I didn't say this is impossible, and it's not. But it is incomplete. It doesn't explain why science works, or why we should expect it to work. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I assume if science is "working" then we are gaining an accurate and complete understanding of the universe.

 * Exactly. Now, what makes you think science will do this? I agree it does. But what evidence do we have?

 * Well we can't know whether there are higher levels of existence, like a god, unless the higher levels somehow reveal themselves to us. So in terms of defining the universe as "all that exists", from our perspective the universe is everything we can see or otherwise detect. The evidence of science "working" in this regard would be that it logically explains and completely links together everything we know, and does not rely on hypothetical unobserved phenomena to do so. Certainly there could be higher levels of existence that aren't revealing themselves to us, but since we cannot detect them they are philosophically irrelevant to human existence and therefore do not need to be covered by science.

 * But I don't really understand exactly what you're saying here, so can you give a more detailed explanation and state the logic that lead to this conclusion?

 * I think if you try to answer my questions above, you'll see where I'm heading.

WordVirus
'''Yes, I know what a Word virus is. Why do you ask?''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK well you didn't state your definition, so what I consider a WordVirus to be is the set of memetic structures comprising language and other aspects of culture that are imprinted in a human's brain, and which they may then transmit to other humans (which is how it initially became imprinted in their brain). You and I are word-viruses existing within human hosts, and we are reduced to our essence when we communicate over the Internet using only Words (no contact is occurring between us that could occur between two humans who had been in the wild all their lives and had never been infected with a WordVirus). Academia is a standardisation of the process of transmitting the WordVirus. I asked this because Time Cube is a word-based principle that represents the Ineffable Truth of the Universe; Gene Ray intends it to modify the collective WordVirus (incidentally, the collective JudeoChristian elements of the WordVirus are what God actually is, he is not a mystical man in the sky) such that it will not exterminate humanity and therefore cease to exist since it relies on humans to survive. In its Cubically-modified form, the WordVirus will be able to coexist with its human hosts, and both the human species and the WordVirus will be able to evolve naturally (not asymptotically as is occurring in modern times) for millions of years into the future. So the WordVirus could be a highly relevant point of discussion.

 * Hey, you introduced the term WordVirus, not I. You can hardly expect me to define your terms for you. If they need definition (and I agree it's a good idea the way you are using the term here) then it's up to the person who introduces the term, or the usage, to define it.

 * This seems to be conjecture. You spoke about basing everything on science. Is there any scientific evidence for this? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What are you calling "conjecture", the WordVirus concept or the theory of Time Cube modifying the WordVirus to a better state? I'd say there is evidence for the former; I think there have been cases of humans growing up in natural environments and behaving as wild animals (not speaking Hebrew and worshipping Jesus or anything like that), and how can there be any doubt that different cultural environments imprint different behavioural patterns in people's brains? I think children growing up in English-speaking environments would tend to speak English and tend not to speak, say, French.

 * There is also evidence for the WordVirus representing Evil. Has there not been much change to the natural environment over the past few centuries, with the WordVirus disrupting ecosystems and causing the extinction of many species? This is like delivering an impulse to a finely balanced set of scales, such that they move much more than usual; the question is whether the scales will then oscillate until they have returned to a stable state, or fall right off the pivot due to the impulse being too great. In terms of a virus, what if the SARS virus were to have infected all humans (and other susceptible animals) on Earth and exterminated humanity? That would mean that the Time Cube had deemed it Evil, for it can only perpetuate and evolve in conjunction with human hosts.

 * Hmmmm. Is this really what you call science? It still seems like conjecture to me, at best. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * No I think I have given some evidence for the concept of the WordVirus. It has very strong similarities to biological viruses in that it infects a host and then uses the host to infect other hosts, and also creates copies of itself that exist independently in non-living forms such as the Bible. But certainly the WordVirus is much more complex than the explanations I've already given (the work of Richard Dawkins may explain some of the complexities) and research is required to further evaluate the concepts and trends I have described above.

Argument that all religions are false

 * But it is rational to assume that religion is just a fictitious cultural construct -- since most religions contradict each other, only one could be true, meaning that the others are DEFINITELY false. So the rational conclusion is that they're all fictitious.

 * No. Rational conclusions are based on evidence. You have presented none, rather you have stated that "it is rational to assume", which is a nonsense. It is rational to reason. Assumptions are, by definition, not rationally attained.

 * Actually I would say that an assumption is justified iff it is a conclusion reached through rational reasoning. We as humans are not omniscient, therefore we are forced to make assumptions when attempting to gain an objective perspective about the universe. So tell me what's irrational about the following reasoning:

 * Since most religions contradict each other, only 1 could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false, whereas (as far as I know) there is no evidence that any religion may be true. Therefore it is rational to assume that all religion is false.
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

'''No. Firstly, you have over-generalised. It's not possible to logically go from a statement about most religions to one about all religions.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't intend it to be a positive logical proof that all religion is false. However, if we consider the following:
 * There is evidence that most religious beliefs are false (as I explained above).

 * By invalid reasoning, as I explained above.

 * I said MOST religious beliefs, so where is the invalid reasoning in "Since most religions contradict each other, only 1 could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false"?

 * Yes, you said most. But you can't validly argue that since most religions contradict one another only one can possibly be true. This would only be a valid inference if all religions contradicted all others. Please note I don't necessarily dispute your conclusion here. You asked me to comment on the logic. I'm a bit puzzled that you ask this as above you seemed to have admitted that you hadn't presented a positive logical proof.

 * Yes I said I didn't present "a positive logical proof that ALL religion is false" -- rather I showed that most religion must be false. Yes the argument is better restated as "since most religions contradict each other, only a few could be true".

 * There is no evidence that any religious beliefs are true (as far as I know).

 * What do you include in religious beliefs, and what would count as evidence?

 * Religious beliefs generally concern higher planes of existence from which the universe is controlled and/or was created. See further down for "evidence".

 * Now which is MORE rational: believing that all religions are false, given that there is evidence that most of them are false and no evidence that any of them are true; or believing in something without any evidence supporting it? The point being that since Time Cube contradicts all religions that I know of, it is dependent on none of these religions being true; and that I consider that to be a valid postulate, given that the evidence suggests that it may be true and that there is no evidence contradicting it.

 * The second is more rational, as the first is based on a false premise.

 * How can it be rational to believe in something with no evidence supporting it?

 * You asked which was more rational. Neither alternative you gave is particularly rational. You didn't ask that!

 * I'd say that it is ENTIRELY IRRATIONAL to do so, leading to the following restatement of my argument:

 * There is evidence that most religious beliefs are false (Since most religions contradict each other, only 1 could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false).

 * This seems to suffer exactly the same logical flaws as before.

 * OK here is a better version: Since most religions contradict each other, only a few could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false.

 * There is no evidence that any religious beliefs are true (as far as I know).

 * Again I must ask, what would you accept as evidence?

 * See further down

 * Now we may reject the notion of any religious beliefs being true on the basis of lack of evidence. The notion of religious beliefs being false does have evidence supporting it (not conclusively proving that all religion is wrong, just showing that at least some of it must be wrong). So by the process of elimination, if only one of the above can be true, it must be the atheist alternative.

 * No. You have chosen to reject the notion of any religious beliefs being true on the basis of only admitting evidence that suits you.

 * Well of course if there is some evidence for religious beliefs then the notion of them being true cannot be dismissed due to lack thereof, however at present I'm not aware of any evidence so I stand by my rejection of religious beliefs. However you must agree that it is rational to reject beliefs with no evidence supporting them right?

Relativity

 * Similarly, do you believe relativity? Most likely you do, but what if there some evidence disproving it that you don't know of? I see no problem with making assumptions based on the evidence you have, as long as you are willing to alter these assumptions when you learn of evidence that contradicts them.

 * Hmmm, what do you mean by believe in relativity? Einstein himself did not consider General Relativity the last word. On the other hand, Newtonian mechanics works very well for sending rockets to the moon. To think that Relativity disproved Newton is to misunderstand science.

 * Relativity disproved the Newtonian notions of infinite light-speed etc., meaning that it is not applicable in all situations and is therefore only useful as an approximation. It is not useful in the context of a "theory of everything".

 * OK. There were of course two major papers on Relativity, Special Relativity and General Relativity. Would you say that Special Relativity is similarly disproved by General Relativity? I need an answer to this before proceeding, there's no point in my examining views you don't hold.

 * I am not an expert on these subjects so I can't really answer this specific question, however in general I'd say the superiority of theories may be judged by these criteria:

 * A superior theory in the context of a specific set of observations, fits these observations better than other theories.

 * A superior Theory of Everything covers more observations than other theories, and its explanation of observations already covered by other theories is equally or more valid than the explanations given by the other theories.

 * And if two theories are equal according to the above criteria, then Occam's Razor may be used to decide between them.

 * So for relativity vs. Newton mechanics, at low speeds the relativistic effects are negligible so in the context of these specific observations Occam's razor favours Newton. But if we're considering a Theory of Everything then without using occam's razor, we can say that Relativity is superior as it gives equally valid explanations and explains a greater range of observations, in that it covers velocities approaching lightspeed whereas Newton does not. If you explain the differences between general and special relativity, I may be able to evaluate them according to these criteria.

What counts as evidence?
No. Ignoring the overgeneralisation, it is rational to conclude that at most one religion can be true, and that the evidence should be examined for clues as to which, if any, this may be. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, so where is this evidence? Can you state it, or tell me where I can find it?

 * Well, obviously you won't take my word for it. How about Desmond Tutu or Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Will you count their testimony as evidence? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What do you mean, "take my word for it"? I'm not going to accept concepts communicated in Words that are not somehow verifiable. I didn't see any evidence in the articles you linked to above. So again, can you state or direct me to some actual evidence supporting your religious beliefs?

 * I don't know whether I can do that, because you are being evasive as to what counts as evidence. I hope I can, but it's up to you what evidence you will accept. I ask again, would the testimony of either of these men be something that you would want to take into account? (I'll also foreshadow that I'm then going to ask, why or why not?) Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I don't know about individual testimonies. If you were a scientist several centuries ago and were looking for evidence of the notion of the Earth being round, would you be more inclined towards astronomical observations or the testimony of someone who claimed to have sailed around the world?

 * As for religious testimonies, there are many explanations of why people might say things that ostensibly support religious beliefs, other than the religious beliefs being true. They may have just imagined supernatural experiences, possibly due to psychological unbalance (which could be induced, possibly deliberately), they may have gained a false impression of real events or they may just be knowingly speaking fiction for some reason. I can prove that it is possible for words to be fictitious: when you finish reading this sentence, your head will explode. Is your head still intact? If so, what I wrote must have been fiction. So surely concepts communicated in Words need to be somehow verifiable, as I said. If you direct me to the testimonies you are referring to, I may be able to evaluate them more specifically.

Cosmogeny

 * But if everything has to be created, how was the creator created? If god created everything, who created God?

 * It's a paradox, and we can only conclude that the Universe simply exists, and is perpetual

 * No. This is not a valid inference.

 * Actually it is. We must take "Universe" to mean "all that exists", including God; so even if everything we can see was created by God, it could be that God simply exists as a perpetual being; and if God was created by SuperGod, then SuperGod would simply exist as a perpetual being; and so on, until you necessarily reach the highest level of existence.
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

'''Lots of straw men here. I don't believe in a SuperGod or know any Christian who does (unless SuperGod is just another name for God, which seems pointless). But in any case (as I said once before) it seems to just refute the first cause argument. I'm quite happy to regard that as refuted, and so are most (not all) of the Christians I know well.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, so if the first cause argument is false then what is your objection to the notion that the Universe simply exists and is perpetual? Do you have any evidence that disproves it? Also, why are you complaining that deities represent straw men? Don't you believe in God?

 * Dear me. Let's try to untangle all of that.

 * Firstly, arguments are valid or invalid, not true or false. Any first-year course in logic will tell you that.

 * Yes I suppose these are better terms. It is the notion of a "first cause" being necessary that should be considered false, because there is no evidence disproving the notion of a perpetual universe nor conclusively proving the big bang and therefore we should not assume that the universe could not exist without being created at a certain point in linear time.

 * I agree with all of that. I will make the point that I don't think scientific evidence ever proves or disproves anything, it rather supports or fails to support a particular theory. But in most discussions this distinction doesn't matter, and scientists themselves are careless of it at times.

 * Depending on what you mean by the Universe being perpetual, I might agree with you. Do you mean perpetual in the Fred Hoyle sense of a steady-state universe, or in the Stephen Hawking sense of one that is bounded by singularities beyond which we can't say what exists or doesn't exist?

 * I am not aware of this Hawking theory. What evidence supports it? I mean "perpetual" in the sense of the Universe containing cycles that average to Zero, meaning that there is no overall change in the state of the universe. If there are any non-cyclical trends then this could indicate a higher level of existence, like the god that you worship.

 * Sorry, since you raised the subject of black holes I assumed you already knew something of the evidence for their existence. Hawking has been a key player in promoting this theory.

 * Yes I know about the existence of black holes, but what's this theory about the universe being "bounded" by them, and what exactly does it have to do with perpetuality?

 * But this seems to be the Hoyle theory, and requires no mathematics. Hoyle talked of the cosmological principle as the idea that the universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you are or which way you look. When he extended this to time as well he called it the perfect cosmological principle, and cited it as his reason for disbelieving the big bang. So far as I know he never succeeded in stating it mathematically! It's more difficult than you might think.

 * But from the explanation of Hoyle's theory in the article, isn't he saying that the universe is always expanding? Doesn't the notion of the universe getting bigger and bigger forever represent a non-cyclical linear trend?

 * I said nothing about deities representing straw men. A straw man is an argument, not a person, or even a personified deity. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A straw man is when one refutes only some weaker arguments and then suggests that the other arguments are also invalid, right? So are your weaker arguments the ones that pertain to your religious beliefs? Anyway, it sounds like a strawman is just another tactic people use to avoid responding adequately to arguments, so if you think I haven't adequately refuted some of your arguments then please restate those arguments.

 * Let me try to untangle that. The straw man is the weaker argument, yes, but it's proposed by the person who intends to dismiss it, so here it would be your argument, not mine. But as to restating the arguments, we've already done this, above. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * -- as a 4-corner cycle of galaxy formed from dust cloud, galaxy exists, galaxy sucked into black hole, black hole evaporates to dust cloud. No big bang.

 * Again, this is IMO incoherent. Andrewa 10:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Here is the 4-corner cycle again:
 * 1. A galaxy is formed from a dust cloud.
 * 2. The galaxy exists.
 * 3. The galaxy collapses into a black hole.
 * 4. The black hole evaporates, forming a dust cloud.

 * So you can see that this process could repeat over and over, forming a perpetual cycle. This means that the existence of galaxies doesn't prove the Big Bang.
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

This seems baseless speculation to me, and I don't see any connection to the issues of whether the God I follow is real, or whether the Time Cube is a useful analysis. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It is connected to the cosmological argument because if the Universe wasn't created -- which could be the case if it's perpetual -- then the cosmological argument is untrue. If it's NOT perpetual then it must have been set into motion somehow, and as far as I know science has no explanations for anything like this, although religion has quite a few (which tend to lack evidence).

 * Now if the universe is perpetual, in that it has always existed and will always exist, then one way to represent this would be an infinite linear timescale -- but what evidence is there for the notion of infinity? There is none, as far as I know, so I think a finite explanation would be more rational -- and the 4/16 rotation represents the earth revolving in a finite circle in space, and also cycling through a finite circle in Time. I will clarify this more once you understand the 4/16 rotation principle.

 * Also, why do you consider the above theory to be baseless? Has science not shown that black holes evaporate?

 * IMO this is more speculation. Science has AFAIK not shown that black holes evaporate or even that they exist, although many physicists believe that they do (and so do I). But the evaporation is speculation. It is well-founded, but it could be wrong. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * True, and even if it were proven that black holes evaporate, galaxies still wouldn't necessarily be perpetual as their physical characteristics might not allow such cyclical transformations. Anyway even if perpetual galaxies are impossible there could still be other means of the universe being perpetual, such as a cycle of "big bangs" and "big crunches".

 * Exactly. So, on what scale is it perpetual? Or is it turtles all the way down? Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know the scale of the Universe's perpetuality; Time Cube merely requires that it is perpetual. This "turtles all the way down" theory seems to state that there are infinite higher levels of existence, a notion that I reject on the grounds of there being no evidence for the concept of "infinity" (not to mention there being, as far as I know, no evidence for ANY higher levels of existence such as gods or turtles). Do you have any evidence for this concept?

Predictive theories
And finally, are you able to refute the 4/16 Rotation Principle below?

 * Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

 * Easily, as I did before. You claim not to believe anything that is not scientific. But, absolute, irrefutable proof is not possible within the scientific method. Andrewa 11:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * True, so below I have requoted my text from above with that statement changed. Note that what you wrote above doesn't constitute a refutation of the actual 4/16 rotation principle, only a refutation of my subjective statement about absolute irrefutable proof. Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

 * As I also said long ago, there is nothing to refute. Part of the scientific method is verification of predictive theories. This seems to make no verifiable predictions, so it's not a scientific theory at all. What would count as a refutation? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I only wanted you to respond to my question "Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?" however in response to what you have posted, I'd say that predictivity is not necessary. What if Einstein hadn't formulated his relativity theories when he did, and instead they were formulated much later based on the astronomical observations and atomic clock experiments that were in reality used to verify the theory? Would this mean that, for instance, there is no time dilation at velocities approaching lightspeed? Of course not, so I'd say that predictivity is but a convenient means of verifying a theory. Why should we expect a theory of everything to do anything other than explain all known phenomena and be favoured by the principle of Occam's Razor?

 * Well, I believe that without predictive consequences, you can't call Time Cube science. If relativity had not been developed until after the various verifications (hard to imagine in the case of the atomic clocks, but easy in the case of light bending around the sun) then we'd have needed another verification before accepting the theory. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's all very well for you to believe that predictivity is absolutely necessary, but can you give rational justification for this belief or is it just dogma? BTW I stated a few possible Cubic predictions in the February debate, so you can get these from the archive if you want.

Meaning of cube

 * Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 rotation principle proves that there are 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

If you are still confused about my use of "sum" in the above, my last explanation of this was as follows: "Algorithmically speaking: FOR each of the 4 space corners {ADD 4 Time Corners to the total number of SpaceTime configurations}"'. This is a technically correct algorithm, right? So how does my initial sentence, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations", fail to represent that algorithm? Furthermore, how does YOUR corrected version, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners MULTIPLY(Product) to 16 SpaceTime configurations", represent this algorithm better than the original phrase?" Also, this graphical explanation of the 4/16 Rotation Principle may help in understanding the concept.'

 * It's not an algorithm at all, as you haven't said what it is computing or what other task it is performing. You're right, I don't understand the concept. It appears to be pure gibberish to me. I've looked at the page you linked to above, and it is no better. Andrewa 11:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The algorithm calculates the total number of SpaceTime configurations, where a SpaceTime configuration is defined as a unique combination of one Space Corner and one Time Corner, and a Corner, in the context of the Earth's rotation, is defined as either 1. Sunup; 2. Midday; 3. Sundown; 4. Midnight; (4 different corners), with Space Corners and Time Corners being specific types of corners. So given these definitions, and without necessarily understanding their real-world applications, you should now be able to evaluate the algorithm and the associated prosaic statement "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations".
 * (PLEASE RESPOND)

 * I already have. I still think it would be better to avoid the word sum here. To me 4x4 reflects the pattern you describe far better and more simply than 4+4+4+4 does. The problem is that to say 4x4 makes it obvious that this is a square number, not a cube at all. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The third power has nothing to do with this. Furthermore the 4/16 rotation principle doesn't encompass the whole Cube form; it merely describes a rotating Square, which, when projected along an axis with length less than its side length, becomes a rotating dilated Cube (see my explanation of the Cube form for more on this).

 * Agree that the third power has nothing to do with this. That's one of the many reasons that the Time Cube fails to be a useful scientific model. Perhaps if it was re-expressed in terms that don't already have these other meanings, you'd have something useful (although I'm sceptical). Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think there was ever any confusion about the term "Cube". Gene Ray has pictures of Cubes on his site, he explains the geometric principle in terms of a Cube-like room (ceiling, floor and 4 walls) and nowhere does he mention the 3rd power; and I think the same applies to me. If you find the terms ambiguous then you should ask me for clarification.

Graphical representation (website)

 * Now the graphical explanation I linked to makes sense to me, and I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand any of it at all. Is this the case, or is it just that you did not recognise any overall logical principle being conveyed? The explanation consists of 6 panels. Surely you are at least able to understand the first panel? And can you not make any sense whatsoever of the 4th panel, which explains the harmonic properties of the 4 Corners/4 Quadrants? I think that you should be able to make a more specific evaluation of this explanation.

'''I can understand bits of it, it's not patent nonsense any more than Jabberwocky is. But taken as a whole, it seems incoherent to me.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK so let's examine it closer. Can you understand all of the first panel?

 * No. For a start, the four corners are shown as equally spaced, and this seems to be essential in terms of the definition of the cube that you use. But, for most of the time in most places on earth, dawn is not equally spaced between midnight and noon, nor is sunset.

 * This is due to the earth's Axis tilt, which cancels out when averaged over the whole year, giving a vertical alignment with equal spacing of the 4 corners. The cycle of Seasons is another cubic 4-corner cycle, but since we are focusing only on the Earth's rotation we must ignore it.

 * I see. So, let's just find one of these corners. How do we do so?

 * The primary space corner is at midday, where the Sun's rays strike the Earth's surface perpendicularly.

 * Secondly, the choice of four seems arbitrary. We could equally divide day and night both into three, and have six people standing around the globe... say Socrates, Clinton, Einstein, Jesus, Kathy and Fred. Why four? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is explained in the fourth panel. And the notion of the harmonicity of the 4 90-degree corners (totalling 360 degrees, 1 full rotation) is not exclusive to Time Cube -- in mathematics, 2 dimensional axes are used to divide a flat plane into 4 Quadrants. So I think you can answer your own question by explaining why this is not arbitrary and why dividing a plane into 3 or 5 or any other number of radial segments would not be an equally valid system.

 * No, it still seems arbitrary to me. I can't see any connection between cartesian coordinates in a plane and the decision to have four corners in the Time Cube model. The fourth panel contains some true statements, certainly, but the concepts have no obvious connection. And as we have already seen, the fifth and final panel completely misrepresents science.

 * So explain why the 2d plane is divided into 4 quadrants and why other divisions wouldn't be valid, and then I will explain how it applies to the harmonic 4-corner-quadrant division.

Serious research

 * You have a good brain. Did you ever consider doing some serious research? Every little bit helps. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually I consider Time Cube to be serious, as it makes sense to me and I am not aware of any legitimate refutations of it. So my rational conclusion is that it should not be automatically dismissed, rather it should be further evaluated.

 * Also, why haven't you responded to the other threads? I have now added (PLEASE RESPOND) to the places where the discussion is to continue.

'''Done. I hope you find the responses helpful. They can now provide some headings for further discussion, indenting and bolding only as normal from now on.''' Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, now can you respond to my explanation of the algorithm above, and also to my question "Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?". I've now added (PLEASE RESPOND) to these.

 * Done. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrewa/archive4


text:
Romanization of Russian

The romanization of the Russian language (the transliteration of Russian text from the Cyrillic script into the Latin script), aside from its primary use for including Russian names and words in text written in a Latin alphabet, is also essential for computer users to input Russian text who either do not have a keyboard or word processor set up for inputting Cyrillic, or else are not capable of typing rapidly using a native Russian keyboard layout (JCUKEN). In the latter case, they would type using a system of transliteration fitted for their keyboard layout, such as for English QWERTY keyboards, and then use an automated tool to convert the text into Cyrillic.

Systematic transliterations of Cyrillic to Latin
There are a number of distinct and competing standards for the romanization of Russian Cyrillic, with none of them having received much popularity, and, in reality, transliteration is often carried out without any consistent standards.

Scientific transliteration
Scientific transliteration, also known as the International Scholarly System, is a system that has been used in linguistics since the 19th century. It is based on the Czech alphabet and formed the basis of the GOST and ISO systems.

OST 8483
OST 8483 was the first Soviet standard on romanization of Russian, introduced on 16 October 1935.

GOST 16876-71 (1973)
Developed by the National Administration for Geodesy and Cartography at the USSR Council of Ministers, GOST 16876-71 has been in service since 1973. Replaced by GOST 7.79-2000.

ST SEV 1362 (1978)
This standard is an equivalent of GOST 16876-71 and was adopted as an official standard of the COMECON.

GOST 7.79-2000 (2002)
GOST 7.79-2000 System of Standards on Information, Librarianship, and Publishing–Rules for Transliteration of the Cyrillic Characters Using the Latin Alphabet is an adoption of ISO 9:1995. It is the official standard of both Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

GOST 52535.1-2006 (2006)
GOST 52535.1-2006 ''Identification cards. Machine readable travel documents. Part 1. Machine readable passports'' is an adoption of an ICAO standard for travel documents. It was used in Russian passports for a short period during 2010–2013 (see below). The standard was substituted in 2013 by GOST R ISO/IEC 7501-1-2013, which does not contain romanization, but directly refers to the ICAO romanization (see below).

Street and road signs
Names on street and road signs in the Soviet Union were romanized according to GOST 10807-78 (tables 17, 18), which was amended by newer Russian GOST R 52290-2004 (tables Г.4, Г.5), the romanizations in both the standards are practically identical.

ISO/R 9
ISO/R 9, established in 1954 and updated in 1968, was the adoption of the scientific transliteration by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It covers Russian and seven other Slavic languages.

ISO 9
ISO 9:1995 is the current transliteration standard from ISO. It is based on its predecessor ISO/R 9:1968, which it deprecates; for Russian, the two are the same except in the treatment of five modern letters. ISO 9:1995 is the first language-independent, univocal system of one character for one character equivalents (by the use of diacritics) that faithfully represents the original and allows for reverse transliteration for Cyrillic text in any contemporary language.

United Nations romanization system
The UNGEGN, a Working Group of the United Nations, in 1987 recommended a romanization system for geographical names, which was based on the 1983 version of GOST 16876-71. It may be found in some international cartographic products.

Library of Congress (ALA-LC)
American Library Association and Library of Congress (ALA-LC) romanization tables for Slavic alphabets are used in North American libraries and in the British Library since 1975.

The formal, unambiguous version of the system for bibliographic cataloguing requires some diacritics, two-letter tie characters, and prime marks. The standard is also often adapted as a "simplified" or "modified Library of Congress system" for use in text for a non-specialized audience, omitting the special characters and diacritics, simplifying endings, and modifying iotated initials.

British Standard
British Standard 2979:1958 is the main system of the Oxford University Press, and a variation was used by the British Library to catalogue publications acquired up to 1975—the Library of Congress system (ALA-LC) is used for newer acquisitions.

BGN/PCGN
The BGN/PCGN system is relatively intuitive for Anglophones to read and pronounce. In many publications, a simplified form of the system is used to render English versions of Russian names, typically converting ë to yo, simplifying -iy and -yy endings to -y, and omitting apostrophes for ъ and ь. It can be rendered using only the basic letters and punctuation found on English-language keyboards: no diacritics or unusual letters are required, although the interpunct character (·) may be used to avoid ambiguity.

This particular standard is part of the BGN/PCGN romanization system which was developed by the United States Board on Geographic Names and by the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use. The portion of the system pertaining to the Russian language was adopted by BGN in 1944 and by PCGN in 1947.

Transliteration of names on Russian passports
In Soviet international passports, transliteration was based on French rules but without diacritics and so all names were transliterated in a French-style system.

In 1997, with the introduction of new Russian passports, a diacritic-free English-oriented system was established by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, but the system was also abandoned in 2010.

In 2006, GOST R 52535.1-2006 was adopted, which defines technical requirements and standards for Russian international passports and introduces its own system of transliteration. In 2010, the Federal Migration Service of Russia approved Order No. 26, stating that all personal names in the passports issued after 2010 must be transliterated using GOST R 52535.1-2006. Because of some differences between the new system and the old one, citizens who wanted to retain the old version of a name's transliteration, especially one that had been in the old pre-2010 passport, could apply to the local migration office before they acquired a new passport. The standard was abandoned in 2013.

In 2013, Order No. 320 of the Federal Migration Service of Russia came into force. It states that all personal names in the passports must be transliterated by using the ICAO system, which is published in Doc 9303 "Machine Readable Travel Documents, Part 3". The system differs from the GOST R 52535.1-2006 system in two things: ц is transliterated into ts (as in pre-2010 systems), ъ is transliterated into ie (a novelty).

Latin script
In a second sense, the romanization or Latinization of Russian may also indicate the introduction of a dedicated Latin alphabet for writing the Russian language. Such an alphabet would not necessarily bind closely to the traditional Cyrillic orthography. The transition from Cyrillic to Latin has been proposed several times throughout history (especially during the Soviet era), but was never conducted on a large scale, except for informal romanizations in the computer era.

The most serious possibility of adoption of a Latin alphabet for the Russian language was discussed in 1929–30 during the campaign of latinisation of the languages of the USSR, when a special commission was created to propose a latinisation system for Russian.

Latin letter names in Russian
The letters of the Latin script are named in Russian as following (and are borrowed from French and/or German): • A: a (а)

• B: be (бэ)

• C: ce (цэ)

• D: de (дэ)

• E: je or e (е) or (э)

• F: ef (эф)

• G: ge or že (гэ) or (жэ)

• H: aš or ha (аш) or (ха)

• I: i (и)

• J: jot or ži (йот) or (жи)

• K: ka (ка)

• L: elʹ (эль)

• M: em (эм)

• N: en (эн)

• O: o (о)

• P: pe (пэ)

• Q: ku (ку)

• R: er (эр)

• S: es (эс)

• T: te (тэ)

• U: u (у)

• V: ve (вэ)

• W: dublʹ-ve (дубль-вэ)

• X: iks (икс)

• Y: igrek (игрек) or ipsilon (ипсилон)

• Z: zet (зет)

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

title: Romanization of Russian


text:
Template talk:FinlandProper

The names follow the official spelling, also used in the List of Finnish municipalities. -- Mic 18:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

title: Template talk:FinlandProper


text:
Template talk:Uusimaa

The names follow the official spelling, also used in the List of Finnish municipalities. -- Mic 18:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Uusimaa


text:
Lefty Williams

Claude Preston "Lefty" Williams (March 9, 1893 – November 4, 1959) was an American pitcher in Major League Baseball. He is probably best known for his involvement in the 1919 World Series fix, known as the Black Sox Scandal.

Career
Williams was born in Aurora, Missouri, to William and Mary Williams. He began his major league career on September 17, 1913, with the Detroit Tigers.

Williams' breakthrough season came in 1915, while with the Salt Lake City Bees of the Pacific Coast League. That year, he pitched 418.2 innings, leading the league in wins (33) and strikeouts (294), while featuring mostly his mid-90s fastball and swooping curve. His contract was then purchased by the Chicago White Sox.

With the White Sox, Williams settled into the starting rotation and helped the team win the pennant in 1917, going 17–8. After spending 1918 working in Navy shipyards, he came back strong in 1919 with his greatest performance, going 23–11 with a 2.64 earned run average. The White Sox again won the American League pennant. However, before that year's World Series, he was involved in the Black Sox Scandal when teammate Chick Gandil offered him $10,000 to lose his starts. Williams only received $5,000, half of what he was promised, a sum that was still almost double his 1919 salary of $2,600.

In the series, Williams went 0–3, with an earned run average of 6.63. His three losses were a World Series record. That was equaled in the 1981 Series when George Frazier lost three games. Eight Men Out author Eliot Asinof wrote that Williams eventually turned against the fix as he prepared for his final Series start; Asinof later admitted that this particular anecdote was made up.

In 1920, Williams went 22–14, but was caught up in the indictments handed down that autumn. Though acquitted by a jury, Williams and the seven other "Black Sox" were banned from organized baseball by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

Afterwards, Williams barnstormed and played in outlaw leagues for a few years, and he played briefly for the Fort Bayard Veterans team in New Mexico which was part of the Copper League or Cactus League. He supposedly took to drinking heavily. It was reported that the between-inning "nips" made him an intimidating pitcher to the batters.

Williams is listed as a manager of the Anaheim/San Bernardino Valencias for part of the 1948 season of the Class-C Sunset League.

Williams spent his later years in Laguna Beach, California where he died in 1959, operating a garden nursery business.

Williams was portrayed by actor James Read in the 1988 film Eight Men Out.

title: Lefty Williams


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Floyd Long Songs

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Pink Floyd Long Songs.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article after merging the list of long songs into Pink Floyd.

Pointless, arbitrary trivia. Andy Mabbett 18:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any information here should be under Pink Floyd. — Chameleon 19:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Create ==Trivia== in Pink Floyd, move there, then delete. Wyllium 20:20, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wyllium. RickK 19:21, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion, Wyllium. Denni 21:57, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto to the above three posts.--Atemperman 04:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wyllium idea - Tεx τ urε 16:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:ZeLonewolf/old1

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 22:09, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, I was just looking at your contributions to Slashdot trolling phenomena (love this article) and I wanted to drop you a hint - you should fill out the "summary" field every time you make an edit to let others know what kind of edit you made (anything from typo, added link to ____, to rewrote article!). Cheers, fabiform | talk 23:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC).

title: User talk:ZeLonewolf/old1


text:
Experimental physics

Experimental physics is the category of disciplines and sub-disciplines in the field of physics that are concerned with the observation of physical phenomena and experiments. Methods vary from discipline to discipline, from simple experiments and observations, such as Galileo's experiments, to more complicated ones, such as the Large Hadron Collider.

Overview
Experimental physics is a branch of physics that is concerned with data acquisition, data-acquisition methods, and the detailed conceptualization (beyond simple thought experiments) and realization of laboratory experiments. It is often contrasted with theoretical physics, which is more concerned with predicting and explaining the physical behaviour of nature than with acquiring empirical data.

Although experimental and theoretical physics are concerned with different aspects of nature, they both share the same goal of understanding it and have a symbiotic relationship. The former provides data about the universe, which can then be analyzed in order to be understood, while the latter provides explanations for the data and thus offers insight into how to better acquire data and set up experiments. Theoretical physics can also offer insight into what data is needed in order to gain a better understanding of the universe, and into what experiments to devise in order to obtain it.

History
As a distinct field, experimental physics was established in early modern Europe, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution, by physicists such as Galileo Galilei, Christiaan Huygens, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal and Sir Isaac Newton. In the early 17th century, Galileo made extensive use of experimentation to validate physical theories, which is the key idea in the modern scientific method. Galileo formulated and successfully tested several results in dynamics, in particular the law of inertia, which later became the first law in Newton's laws of motion. In Galileo's Two New Sciences, a dialogue between the characters Simplicio and Salviati discuss the motion of a ship (as a moving frame) and how that ship's cargo is indifferent to its motion. Huygens used the motion of a boat along a Dutch canal to illustrate an early form of the conservation of momentum.

Experimental physics is considered to have reached a high point with the publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 by Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727). In 1687, Newton published the Principia, detailing two comprehensive and successful physical laws: Newton's laws of motion, from which arise classical mechanics; and Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes the fundamental force of gravity. Both laws agreed well with experiment. The Principia also included several theories in fluid dynamics.

From the late 17th century onward, thermodynamics was developed by physicist and chemist Robert Boyle, Thomas Young, and many others. In 1733, Daniel Bernoulli used statistical arguments with classical mechanics to derive thermodynamic results, initiating the field of statistical mechanics. In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) demonstrated the conversion of mechanical work into heat, and in 1847 James Prescott Joule stated the law of conservation of energy, in the form of heat as well as mechanical energy. Ludwig Boltzmann, in the nineteenth century, is responsible for the modern form of statistical mechanics.

Besides classical mechanics and thermodynamics, another great field of experimental inquiry within physics was the nature of electricity. Observations in the 17th and eighteenth century by scientists such as Boyle, Stephen Gray, and Benjamin Franklin created a foundation for later work. These observations also established our basic understanding of electrical charge and current. By 1808 John Dalton had discovered that atoms of different elements have different weights and proposed the modern theory of the atom.

It was Hans Christian Ørsted who first proposed the connection between electricity and magnetism after observing the deflection of a compass needle by a nearby electric current. By the early 1830s Michael Faraday had demonstrated that magnetic fields and electricity could generate each other. In 1864 James Clerk Maxwell presented to the Royal Society a set of equations that described this relationship between electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's equations also predicted correctly that light is an electromagnetic wave. Starting with astronomy, the principles of natural philosophy crystallized into fundamental laws of physics which were enunciated and improved in the succeeding centuries. By the 19th century, the sciences had segmented into multiple fields with specialized researchers and the field of physics, although logically pre-eminent, no longer could claim sole ownership of the entire field of scientific research.

Current experiments

Some examples of prominent experimental physics projects are:

 * Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider which collides heavy ions such as gold ions (it is the first heavy ion collider) and protons, it is located at Brookhaven National Laboratory, on Long Island, USA.
 * HERA, which collides electrons or positrons and protons, and is part of DESY, located in Hamburg, Germany.
 * LHC, or the Large Hadron Collider, which completed construction in 2008 but suffered a series of setbacks. The LHC began operations in 2008, but was shut down for maintenance until the summer of 2009. It is the world's most energetic collider upon completion, it is located at CERN, on the French-Swiss border near Geneva. The collider became fully operational March 29, 2010 a year and a half later than originally planned.
 * LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, is a large-scale physics experiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves and to develop gravitational-wave observations as an astronomical tool. Currently two LIGO observatories exist: LIGO Livingston Observatory in Livingston, Louisiana, and LIGO Hanford Observatory near Richland, Washington.
 * JWST, or the James Webb Space Telescope, launched in 2021. It will be the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. It will survey the sky in the infrared region. The main goals of the JWST will be in order to understand the initial stages of the universe, galaxy formation as well as the formations of stars and planets, and the origins of life.
 * Mississippi State Axion Search (2016 completion), Light Shining Through a Wall Experiment (LSW); EM Source: .7m, 50W continuous radio wave emitter

Method
Experimental physics uses two main methods of experimental research, controlled experiments, and natural experiments. Controlled experiments are often used in laboratories as laboratories can offer a controlled environment. Natural experiments are used, for example, in astrophysics when observing celestial objects where control of the variables in effect is impossible.

Famous experiments
Famous experiments include:

 * Bell test experiments
 * Cavendish experiment
 * Chicago Pile-1
 * Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment
 * Davisson–Germer experiment
 * Delayed-choice quantum eraser
 * Double-slit experiment
 * Eddington experiment
 * Eötvös experiment
 * Fizeau experiment
 * Foucault pendulum
 * Franck–Hertz experiment
 * Geiger–Marsden experiment
 * Gravity Probe A and Gravity Probe B
 * Hafele–Keating experiment
 * Homestake experiment
 * Kite experiment
 * Oil drop experiment
 * Michelson–Morley experiment
 * Rømer's determination of the speed of light
 * Stern–Gerlach experiment
 * Torricelli's experiment
 * Wu experiment

Experimental techniques
Some well-known experimental techniques include:

 * Crystallography
 * Ellipsometry
 * Faraday cage
 * Interferometry
 * NMR
 * Laser cooling
 * Laser spectroscopy
 * Raman spectroscopy
 * Signal processing
 * Spectroscopy
 * STM
 * Vacuum technique
 * X-ray spectroscopy
 * Inelastic neutron scattering

Prominent experimental physicists
Famous experimental physicists include:

 * Archimedes (c. 287 BC – c. 212 BC)
 * Alhazen (965–1039)
 * Al-Biruni (973–1043)
 * Al-Khazini (fl. 1115–1130)
 * Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)
 * Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647)
 * Robert Boyle (1627–1691)
 * Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695)
 * Robert Hooke (1635–1703)
 * Isaac Newton (1643–1727)
 * Ole Rømer (1644–1710)
 * Stephen Gray (1666–1736)
 * Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)
 * Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
 * Laura Bassi (1711–1778)
 * Henry Cavendish (1731–1810)
 * Joseph Priestley (1733–1804)
 * William Herschel (1738–1822)
 * Alessandro Volta (1745–1827)
 * Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827)
 * Benjamin Thompson (1753–1814)
 * John Dalton (1766–1844)
 * Thomas Young (1773–1829)
 * Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855)
 * Hans Christian Ørsted (1777–1851)
 * Humphry Davy (1778–1829)
 * Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788–1827)
 * Michael Faraday (1791–1867)
 * James Prescott Joule (1818–1889)
 * William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)
 * James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
 * Ernst Mach (1838–1916)
 * John William Strutt (3rd Baron Rayleigh) (1842–1919)
 * Wilhelm Röntgen (1845–1923)
 * Karl Ferdinand Braun (1850–1918)
 * Henri Becquerel (1852–1908)
 * Albert Abraham Michelson (1852–1931)
 * Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (1853–1926)
 * J. J. Thomson (1856–1940)
 * Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894)
 * Jagadish Chandra Bose (1858–1937)
 * Pierre Curie (1859–1906)
 * William Henry Bragg (1862–1942)
 * Marie Curie (1867–1934)
 * Robert Andrews Millikan (1868–1953)
 * Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937)
 * Lise Meitner (1878–1968)
 * Max von Laue (1879–1960)
 * Clinton Davisson (1881–1958)
 * Hans Geiger (1882–1945)
 * C. V. Raman (1888–1970)
 * William Lawrence Bragg (1890–1971)
 * James Chadwick (1891–1974)
 * Arthur Compton (1892–1962)
 * Pyotr Kapitsa (1894–1984)
 * Charles Drummond Ellis (1895–1980)
 * John Cockcroft (1897–1967)
 * Patrick Blackett (Baron Blackett) (1897–1974)
 * Ukichiro Nakaya (1900–1962)
 * Enrico Fermi (1901–1954)
 * Ernest Lawrence (1901–1958)
 * Walter Houser Brattain (1902–1987)
 * Pavel Cherenkov (1904–1990)
 * Carl David Anderson (1905–1991)
 * Felix Bloch (1905–1983)
 * Ernst Ruska (1906–1988)
 * John Bardeen (1908–1991)
 * William Shockley (1910–1989)
 * Dorothy Hodgkin (1910–1994)
 * Luis Walter Alvarez (1911–1988)
 * Chien-Shiung Wu (1912–1997)
 * Willis Lamb (1913–2008)
 * Charles Hard Townes (1915–2015)
 * Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958)
 * Owen Chamberlain (1920–2006)
 * Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920–2017)
 * Vera Rubin (1928–2016)
 * Mildred Dresselhaus (1930–2017)
 * Rainer Weiss (1932–)
 * Carlo Rubbia (1934–)
 * Barry Barish (1936–)
 * Samar Mubarakmand (1942–)
 * Serge Haroche (1944–)
 * Anton Zeilinger (1945–)
 * Alain Aspect (1947–)
 * Gerd Binnig (1947–)
 * Steven Chu (1948–)
 * Wolfgang Ketterle (1957–)
 * Andre Geim (1958–)
 * Lene Hau (1959–)

Timelines
See the timelines below for listings of physics experiments.
 * Timeline of atomic and subatomic physics
 * Timeline of classical mechanics
 * Timeline of electromagnetism and classical optics
 * Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity
 * Timeline of nuclear fusion
 * Timeline of particle discoveries
 * Timeline of particle physics technology
 * Timeline of states of matter and phase transitions
 * Timeline of thermodynamics

title: Experimental physics


text:
DYS (band)

DYS is an American straight edge hardcore punk band from Boston, Massachusetts, who were part of the "Boston Crew" in the 1980s, along with contemporaries such as SSD and Negative FX. The group later expanded their sound, becoming one of the first hardcore bands to veer into heavy metal.

Formation
DYS was founded in the 1980s by singer Dave Smalley and bassist Jonathan Anastas. At the time, Smalley was a freshman at Boston College, while Anastas - at age 15 - had previously founded the short-lived band Decadence, whose song "Slam" was featured on the This Is Boston, Not LA compilation, and later adopted for a long-running MTV advertising campaign titled "Santa, the Man, the Myth, the Slam Dancer."

DYS took its name from the Department of Youth Services, a Massachusetts governmental organization where delinquent youth were housed, as well as the Alice Cooper teen power anthem "Department of Youth." Smalley and Anastas were joined by guitarist Andy Strachan and drummer Dave Collins. The band released their debut album Brotherhood, produced by punk recording legend Lou Giordano. They added lead guitar player Ross Luongo and released their second self-titled album, DYS, which took them in a metal direction and included the first power ballad ever attempted by a hardcore band. During their metal period, live sound was handled by noted hard rock producer Andrew Murdock, who works under the professional name "Mudrock” and ex-SS Decontrol drummer Chris Foley performed with the band, including their final show, a showcase for Elektra Records A&R executive Michael Alago, who was feted in a 2017 bio pic.

Initial Breakup
After DYS broke up, Anastas became a founding member of Slapshot. Dave Smalley went on to sing for Dag Nasty, ALL and Down By Law, before founding Don't Sleep. Strachan co-founded the more rock-focused band Slaughter Shack, winning the Rumble music contest. Ross Luongo went on to play guitar for the reformed Jerry's Kids. Both of DYS's 1980s albums were re-issued together on CD and in digital formats by Taang! Records (titled Fire and Ice). Brotherhood has periodically reissued on CD, vinyl and digital formats with and without the addition of the Wolfpack demo tape, featuring Hüsker Dü singing back-up vocals. An anniversary re-release with Bridge9 Records was issued in January 2024.

Reformation
On August 29, 2010, DYS headlined the Gallery East reunion show in front of over 1,000 fans, along with fellow Boston hardcore punk pioneers Jerry's Kids, Gang Green and The F.U.'s, Slapshot as well as New York City's Antidote. The reunion line-up included an additional guitar player, Bobby Frankenheim (Ex-Deathwish), and drummer Jack Clark of Jerry's Kids and Unnatural Axe. The show was recorded for the movie xxx ALL AGES xxx, a documentary about the hardcore punk scene in Boston in the 1980s. A live album of the performance was released on August 9, 2011, on Bridge 9 Records as "More than Fashion: LIVE from the Gallery East Reunion" on vinyl and digital formats.

After that show, and facing interest from promoters to continue the reunion shows, Smalley and Anastas recruited a new west coast-based "all star" line-up featuring ex-Foo Fighters and current Scream guitarist Franz Stahl, ex-Powerman 5000 drummer Al Pahanish Jr., and guitarist Adam Porris, who played in Far From Finished. They played the 2010 "Hometown Throwdown" at the House of Blues in Boston, in support of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and again at the same venue in support of the Dropkick Murphys' annual St. Patrick's Day stand in 2012. The band also completed 2011 and 2012 recording sessions with their old soundman, Andrew "Mudrock" Murdock, in Los Angeles. Recordings from these sessions were released as digital singles from Fall 2011 through to Fall 2012 on Bridge 9, the first being "Wild Card," released November 8, 2011, followed by "Sound of our Town" featuring Dicky Barrett of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones on guest vocals, released December 13, 2011, "Unloaded", released January 24, 2012, a cover of Motörhead's "(We Are The) Road Crew" in February 2012, a re-make of "Brotherhood" (Brotherhood 2012) in July 2012 and "True Believers" in October 2012.

This line-up of DYS played 50+ live shows in the US and Europe between 2010 and 2017. Major festival dates included the 2011 Rumble Fest in Chicago, the 2011 Sound and Fury Fest in Santa Barbara, the 2012 Black n' Blue Bowl, the 2012 SXSW Festival, the 2012 Groezrock Festival, the 2012 My Fest in Berlin, the 2012 Tsunami East Fest, the 2014 Southeast Beast Fest, the 2014 EIPER Fest and the 2017 Resurrection fest in Spain. DYS announced a summer 2020 run of European festivals and club shows that was cancelled due to COVID-19.

The 2024 Bridge9 Records anniversary re-release of "Brotherhood" sold out the first pressing in pre-orders and peaked at #9 on the Cortex Records sale charts, appearing on the legendary German punk rock record store's influential charts for three weeks.

Discography

 * 1983 – DYS "Brotherhood" on XClaim! Records
 * 1985 – DYS "DYS" on Modern Method Records
 * 1993 – Various Artists "Faster and Louder, Volume Two" (Contributed the track "Wolfpack" which was the band's unreleased first demo tape and a live favorite)
 * 1993 – DYS "Fire and Ice" (first two albums combined on CD) on Taang! Records
 * 2005 – DYS "Wolfpack" – "Brotherhood" re-released with the addition of the band's original Wolfpack radio demo featuring Hüsker Dü on back-up vocals, on Taang! Records
 * 2011 – DYS "More than Fashion: LIVE from the Gallery East Reunion" – live tracks from the "Gallery East Reunion" festival and "xxx All Ages xxx" movie, on Bridge 9 Records
 * 2011 - DYS "Wild Card" - Single on Bridge 9 Records
 * 2011 - DYS "Sound of our Town" - Single on Bridge 9 Records, featuring Dicky Barrett of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones
 * 2012 - DYS "Unloaded" - Single on Bridge 9 Records
 * 2012 - DYS "(We are) The Road Crew" - Single on Bridge 9 Records, Motorhead cover
 * 2012 - DYS "Brotherhood 2012" - Single on Bridge 9 Records
 * 2012 - DYS "True Believer" - Single on Bridge 9 Records
 * 2012 – DYS "Brotherhood" Vinyl-only re-release on Taang! Records (1,000 copies, limited edition, 500 red/500 180 gram)
 * 2023 – DYS "Brotherhood" Vinyl-only "40th Anniversary" version released on Bridge 9 Records (1,000 copies screen printed, one-sided)

title: DYS (band)


text:
Juliusz Schauder

Juliusz Paweł Schauder (21 September 1899 – September 1943) was a Polish mathematician known for his work in functional analysis, partial differential equations and mathematical physics.

Life and career
Born on 21 September 1899 in Lwów to a lawyer father of Jewish descent, he was drafted into the Austro-Hungarian Army right after his graduation from school and saw action on the Italian front. He was captured and imprisoned in Italy. He entered the university in Lwów in 1919 and received his doctorate in 1923. He got no appointment at the university and continued his research while working as teacher at a secondary school. Due to his outstanding results, he obtained a scholarship in 1932 that allowed him to spend several years in Leipzig and, especially, Paris. In Paris he started a very successful collaboration with Jean Leray. Around 1935 Schauder obtained the position of a senior assistant in the University of Lwów. Schauder, along with Stanisław Mazur, was an Invited Speaker of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1936 in Oslo.

Schauder was Jewish, and after the invasion of German troops in Lwów 1941 it was impossible for him to continue his work. Even before the Lwów ghetto was established he wrote to Ludwig Bieberbach pleading for his support. Instead, Bieberbach passed his letter to the Gestapo and Schauder was arrested. In his letters to Swiss mathematicians, he wrote that he had important new results, but no paper to write them down. He was executed by the Gestapo, probably in October 1943.

Most of his mathematical work is in the field of functional analysis, being part of a large Polish group of mathematicians, i.e. the Lwów School of Mathematics. They were pioneers in this area with wide applications in all parts of modern analysis. Schauder is best known for the Schauder fixed-point theorem, which is a major tool to prove the existence of solutions in various problems, the Schauder bases (a generalization of an orthonormal basis from Hilbert spaces to Banach spaces), and the Leray−Schauder principle, a way to establish solutions of partial differential equations from a priori estimates.

In memoriam
The Schauder Medal is awarded by the J.P. Schauder Center for Nonlinear Studies at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland, to individuals for their significant achievements related to topological methods in nonlinear analysis.

title: Juliusz Schauder


text:
Uniform Choice

Uniform Choice (formerly known as Moral Sin) was an American hardcore punk band from Orange County, California.

History
Uniform Choice was started by guitarist Myke Bates, bassist Hanson Meyer and drummer Eric Hanna during the spring of 1982 in Newport Beach, California. Bates had been playing with a couple of bands previously in Palm Springs and his band, Funeral Information, had played early punk shows with SIN 34 and Black Flag. He is also credited for writing the song "Rodney On The ROQ" for KROQ-FM DJ Rodney Bingenheimer, which was performed by Target 13 and appeared on the compilation album Rodney on the ROQ, Vol 2 under the independent record label Posh Boy Records.

Bates left his skateboard shop, Bates Skates, behind in Palm Springs and moved to Newport Beach. He looked to start a new band in Orange County and found Meyer and Hanna who were playing with guitarist Dave Marriott (Hollywood Hate, The Lowdowns, The NightCrawlers) and singer Scott Brandon in a local punk band called Moral Sin. Bates had originally joined the lineup of Moral Sin as a second guitarist but soon after, Scott Brandon left the group leaving it without a singer. Bates then moved into the dual role of guitarist/singer and suggested the group change its name to Uniform Choice with the explanation that it represented our right to do whatever we wanted to do.

After about two months, Marriott left the group to pursue other endeavors and the remaining members pressed forward as a power trio. Meyer and Bates wrote a number of songs together over the course of the next two years including "War is Here" and "Don't Take the Car You'll Kill Yourself". After the punk club Cuckoo's Nest (nightclub) closed down, there were limited clubs for the band to play in the Orange County area. Not too long after the closure of the Cuckoo's Nest, the club reopened as "The Concert Factory" and it was there that Uniform Choice played most of their early shows in late 1982. Bates played guitar and sang lead vocals in the beginning until the group landed on lead singer Elliott Colla, a former classmate of Meyer and Hanna's from Corona Del Mar High School. The band experimented with other singers before Colla. Newport Beach local Eric Whittick sang for a short while. And later in the tradition of X-Ray Spex, 14-year-old Jennifer Harper fronted the band for a short time along with second guitar player Eric VonArab (Love Canal). The band made its first studio demo in September 1982 (Orange Peel Sessions) with Colla heading up vocals. The recordings were engineered and produced by Tom Springston (Tom Tom) of Burnt Party Host and were recorded in Corona Del Mar, California. In 1983, the band experimented with an additional second lead bass player, Brent Turner. Turner only played several shows with the band and left the group to record the album When in Rome Do as the Vandals with The Vandals. Over the course of the first two years the group performed with other established punk acts such as Black Flag, SIN 34, Circle Jerks, Channel 3, Shattered Faith, Bad Religion, Circle One and Angry Samoans.

In early 1983, Hanna and Meyer decided to leave the band, and Bates enlisted an entire new lineup which would be fronted by Pat Dubar and drums being played by Hanna's friend and classmate Pat Dyson (who had played with Plain Wrap in 1983), and Bass being played by John Lorey, and Guitar by Vic Maynez. Meyer went on to play with other groups such as the Finks and Peace Corp., while Bates left the group later in 1983 to pursue other endeavors in Hollywood, California. Dyson and Dubar tried to re-recruit Eric VonArab to rejoin this new rendition of the band.

The group with this final lineup of Pat Dubar, Pat Dyson, Vic Maynez and David Mello went forward with a new vision as Uniform Choice and continued to record and create what was considered the first O.C. Straight Edge Demos. The group gained momentum nationally while performing throughout California and beyond bringing the group to their current level of fame and recognition in the Southern California punk subculture.

Screaming for Change is their most acclaimed album. They also recorded another less well received LP called Staring into the Sun and their demo has been bootlegged several times. Pat Dubar was a graduate of Pepperdine University and created the label Wishingwell Records, which released albums by Unity, Uniform Choice, Blast, and Youth of Today, among others. Uniform Choice is historically among the first five Straight Edge Hardcore bands to emerge from Southern California.

Members

 * Pat Dubar – vocals (1983–1990)
 * Victor Maynez – guitar (1983–1990)
 * Pat Dyson – drums (1983–1986)
 * David Mellow – bass (1984–1990)
 * John Lorey – bass (1983–1984)
 * Patrick Longrie – drums (1986–1990; 1991–1994)
 * Jim Viviano – vocals (1991–1994)
 * Mike Hanes – guitar (1991–1994)
 * Rich J Weinrauch – guitar (1991–1994)
 * Trent Ober – bass (1991–1994)
 * Myke Bates – guitar (1982–1983)
 * Hanson Meyer – bass (1982–1983)
 * Dave Marriott – guitar (1982)
 * Eric Hanna – drums (1982–1983)
 * Elliott Colla – vocals (1982–1983)
 * Eric VonArab – guitar (1982)
 * Brent Turner – bass (1983)
 * Scott Brandon – vocals (1982)

Discography

 * Orange Peel Sessions demo (recorded in 1982, released in 2015)
 * Uniform Choice demo (1984)
 * Screaming for Change (Wishingwell Records, 1986)
 * Region of Ice Giant Records(1988)
 * Staring Into the Sun Giant Records (1988)
 * Rainmaker demo (1991)
 * Consider This demo (1992)

title: Uniform Choice


text:
Wolfpack

Wolfpack or wolf pack may refer to:

 * Pack (canine), a group of canids that live, feed, and travel together as a family group

Music

 * Wolfpack (DJs), a Belgian DJ and music production duo
 * Wolfbrigade, formerly Wolfpack, a Swedish crust punk band
 * Wolfpack (EP), a 2013 EP by Hopes Die Last
 * "Wolfpack", a demo and song by DYS
 * "Wolf Pack", a song by The Vaccines from the album What Did You Expect from The Vaccines?
 * "Wolfpack", a song by Syd Barrett from the album Barrett
 * "The Wolfpack", a song by Angels & Airwaves from the album The Dream Walker
 * "The Wolfpack", a song by Satyricon from the album The Age of Nero
 * "Wolfpack", a song by the Swedish metal band Sabaton from the album Primo Victoria

Video games

 * Wolfpack Studios, a video game company based in Austin, Texas
 * Wolfpack (video game), a 1990 submarine computer game
 * AFO Wolfpack, one of two main AFOs in the 2010 video game Medal of Honor
 * An official nickname associated with eSports team Denial eSports

Other

 * The Wolfpack, a 2015 documentary film
 * Wolf Pack (TV series), a 2023 American television series from Paramount+
 * Wolfpack (wargame), a 1974 board wargame that simulates U-boat warfare during WWII
 * Wolfpack, a Battletech novel written by Robert N. Charrette
 * Wolfpack (Marvel Comics), a Marvel Comics title during the 1980s
 * nWo Wolfpac, a subgroup within the New World Order professional wrestling stable
 * Teenage Wolfpack, a 1956 German film released in the UK as Wolfpack

Military

 * Wolfpack (naval tactic), a system of submarine warfare used by the Kriegsmarine of Germany and the U.S. Navy during World War II
 * Wolfpack (squadron), a U.S. Navy fighter squadron
 * 8th Fighter Wing, a U.S. Air Force unit nicknamed "Wolfpack"
 * HMH-466, a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter squadron known as the Wolfpack
 * 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, a U.S. Marine Corps unit known as "The Wolfpack"
 * HSL-45, a U.S. Navy Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron known as the Wolfpack; see List of units of the United States Navy

Sports

 * Toronto Wolfpack, Canadian professional rugby league team
 * Prairie Wolf Pack, Canadian rugby union team
 * NC State Wolfpack, the collegiate athletic teams that represent North Carolina State University
 * Nevada Wolf Pack, the collegiate athletic teams that represent University of Nevada, Reno
 * Loyola Wolf Pack, the collegiate athletic teams that represent Loyola University New Orleans
 * Thompson Rivers WolfPack, the collegiate athletic teams that represent Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia
 * Wisconsin Wolfpack, an American football franchise based in Wisconsin
 * Hartford Wolf Pack (formerly known as the Connecticut Whale), an ice hockey team in the American Hockey League
 * Portland Wolfpack, a team in the now-defunct International Fight League and based in Portland, Oregon
 * Lillehammer Wolfpack, an American football team based in Lillehammer, Norway
 * BMS Herlev Wolfpack, a Danish basketball team
 * The Wolf Pack, a nickname for the Finland men's national basketball team
 * The Wolfpack, nickname of the Deceuninck–Quick-Step cycling team
 * The Wolf Pack, fanclub of Milwaukee Brewer pitcher Randy Wolf
 * Wolfpack, a former group of devoted fans of the Kansas City Chiefs in the 1960s
 * Saint Ignatius Wolfpack, the high school athletic teams that represent Saint Ignatius College Prep High School in Chicago.

Other uses

 * Wolfpack, the codename for Microsoft Cluster Server
 * La Manada sexual abuse case, Spanish legal case, colloquially known in English as the San Fermin wolf pack case
 * Wolf-PAC, American nonpartisan political action committee

title: Wolfpack


text:
Monasternagalliaghduff

Monasternagalliaghduff  also called the Abbey of St Catherine de O'Conyl or simply Old Abbey, is a ruined Augustinian abbey in County Limerick in Ireland.

Location
The abbey lies in a small valley about two miles east of the village of Shanagolden, in the townland of Oldabbey (named after it), which is in the civil parish of Robertstown and barony of Shanid (formerly part of the barony of Connello or O'Conyl).

History
One of the earliest recorded nunneries in Ireland, it is first mentioned in 1298, and was founded on land donated by John FitzThomas of Connello (who died in 1261). While there are few details, it appears in court and land records over the succeeding centuries, and at Dissolution of the Monasteries during the Reformation in Ireland, in 1541, a valuation is given. Further records of leases, conveyances and other land transactions are found for its ruins and lands.

Architecture
Remains include the abbey church to the east of the cloister, with two small spaces adjacent - one of which is now known as the Black Hag's Cell but which appears to have been a sacristy - a refectory to the south, and a vaulted building to the west. From the refectory a later building projects south towards a stream; it may have been a kitchen. There are also walls and a gate, and traces of an orchard, a fish pond and a pigeon house. The church and cloister walls were assessed as being of similar age, and their windows dated to the 13th century. Modifications to the church in the 15th century saw the inclusion of an east window in the church as well as a doorway in the north. Traces of window decoration, columns, a piscina and a carved tombstone remain.

Burials were also located, and the church plate was reportedly found in the late eighteenth century.

Folklore
Some legends relating to the abbey include:
 * Prior to the dissolution it was said that the nunnery had been dissolved by the Pope as the last abbess practised witchcraft in a room to the south of the church which is now called 'The Black Hag's Cell'. This legend was probably propaganda in furtherance of the dissolution. Wardell suggests the legend might have arisen if a nun remained after the dissolution, and that later people may have misunderstood cailleach dhubh (archaic for "nun") as "black hag".
 * During a feud between the Earl of Desmond and the Butlers, the Desmonds were fleeing the nunnery when the Countess was wounded by an arrow. The Earl, believing her dead, hastily interred her under the church altar; but she had been buried alive, and her screams are said to echo through the ruins to this day.

title: Monasternagalliaghduff


text:
Talk:Lewis Booth

Just if anybody else thinks to check: The original version of this is from, and is public domain. Thue 19:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis Booth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115025247/http://www.liv.ac.uk/giving/about-us/ to http://www.liv.ac.uk/giving/about-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lewis Booth