text:
BIOS interrupt call

BIOS implementations provide interrupts that can be invoked by operating systems and application programs to use the facilities of the firmware on IBM PC compatible computers. Traditionally, BIOS calls are mainly used by DOS programs and some other software such as boot loaders (including, mostly historically, relatively simple application software that boots directly and runs without an operating system—especially game software). BIOS runs in the real address mode (Real Mode) of the x86 CPU, so programs that call BIOS either must also run in real mode or must switch from protected mode to real mode before calling BIOS and then switching back again. For this reason, modern operating systems that use the CPU in Protected mode or Long mode generally do not use the BIOS interrupt calls to support system functions, although they use the BIOS interrupt calls to probe and initialize hardware during booting. Real mode has the 1MB memory limitation, modern boot loaders (e.g. GRUB2, Windows Boot Manager) use the unreal mode or protected mode (and execute the BIOS interrupt calls in the Virtual 8086 mode, but only for OS booting) to access up to 4GB memory.

In all computers, software instructions control the physical hardware (screen, disk, keyboard, etc.) from the moment the power is switched on. In a PC, the BIOS, pre-loaded in ROM on the motherboard, takes control immediately after the CPU is reset, including during power-up, when a hardware reset button is pressed, or when a critical software failure (a triple fault) causes the mainboard circuitry to automatically trigger a hardware reset. The BIOS tests the hardware and initializes its state; finds, loads, and runs the boot program (usually, an OS boot loader, and historical ROM BASIC); and provides basic hardware control to the software running on the machine, which is usually an operating system (with application programs) but may be a directly booting single software application.

For IBM's part, they provided all the information needed to use their BIOS fully or to directly utilize the hardware and avoid BIOS completely, when programming the early IBM PC models (prior to the PS/2). From the beginning, programmers had the choice of using BIOS or not, on a per-hardware-peripheral basis. IBM did strongly encourage the authorship of "well-behaved" programs that accessed hardware only through BIOS INT calls (and DOS service calls), to support compatibility of software with current and future PC models having dissimilar peripheral hardware, but IBM understood that for some software developers and hardware customers, a capability for user software to directly control the hardware was a requirement. In part, this was because a significant subset of all the hardware features and functions was not exposed by the BIOS services. For two examples (among many), the MDA and CGA adapters are capable of hardware scrolling, and the PC serial adapter is capable of interrupt-driven data transfer, but the IBM BIOS supports neither of these useful technical features.

Today, the BIOS in a new PC still supports most, if not all, of the BIOS interrupt function calls defined by IBM for the IBM AT (introduced in 1984), along with many more newer ones, plus extensions to some of the originals (e.g. expanded parameter ranges) promulgated by various other organizations and collaborative industry groups. This, combined with a similar degree of hardware compatibility, means that most programs written for an IBM AT can still run correctly on a new PC today, assuming that the faster speed of execution is acceptable (which it typically is for all but games that use CPU-based timing). Despite the considerable limitations of the services accessed through the BIOS interrupts, they have proven extremely useful and durable to technological change.

Purpose of BIOS calls
BIOS interrupt calls perform hardware control or I/O functions requested by a program, return system information to the program, or do both. A key element of the purpose of BIOS calls is abstraction - the BIOS calls perform generally defined functions, and the specific details of how those functions are executed on the particular hardware of the system are encapsulated in the BIOS and hidden from the program. So, for example, a program that wants to read from a hard disk does not need to know whether the hard disk is an ATA, SCSI, or SATA drive (or in earlier days, an ESDI drive, or an MFM or RLL drive with perhaps a Seagate ST-506 controller, perhaps one of the several Western Digital controller types, or with a different proprietary controller of another brand). The program only needs to identify the BIOS-defined number of the drive it wishes to access and the address of the sector it needs to read or write, and the BIOS will take care of translating this general request into the specific sequence of elementary operations required to complete the task through the particular disk controller hardware that is connected to that drive. The program is freed from needing to know how to control at a low level every type of hard disk (or display adapter, or port interface, or real-time clock peripheral) that it may need to access. This both makes programming operating systems and applications easier and makes the programs smaller, reducing the duplication of program code, as the functionality that is included in the BIOS does not need to be included in every program that needs it; relatively short calls to the BIOS are included in the programs instead. (In operating systems where the BIOS is not used, service calls provided by the operating system itself generally fulfill the same function and purpose.)

The BIOS also frees computer hardware designers (to the extent that programs are written to use the BIOS exclusively) from being constrained to maintain exact hardware compatibility with old systems when designing new systems, in order to maintain compatibility with existing software. For example, the keyboard hardware on the IBM PCjr works very differently than the keyboard hardware on earlier IBM PC models, but to programs that use the keyboard only through the BIOS, this difference is nearly invisible. (As a good example of the other side of this issue, a significant share of the PC programs in use at the time the PCjr was introduced did not use the keyboard through BIOS exclusively, so IBM also included hardware features in the PCjr to emulate the way the original IBM PC and IBM PC XT keyboard hardware works. The hardware emulation is not exact, so not all programs that try to use the keyboard hardware directly will work correctly on the PCjr, but all programs that use only the BIOS keyboard services will.)

In addition to giving access to hardware facilities, BIOS provides added facilities that are implemented in the BIOS software. For example, the BIOS maintains separate cursor positions for up to eight text display pages and provides for TTY-like output with automatic line wrap and interpretation of basic control characters such as carriage return and line feed, whereas the CGA-compatible text display hardware has only one global display cursor and cannot automatically advance the cursor, use the cursor position to address the display memory (so as to determine which character cell will be changed or examined), or interpret control characters. For another example, the BIOS keyboard interface interprets many keystrokes and key combinations to keep track of the various shift states (left and right Shift, Ctrl, and Alt), to call the print-screen service when Shift+PrtScrn is pressed, to reboot the system when Ctrl+Alt+Del is pressed, to keep track of the lock states (Caps Lock, Num Lock, and Scroll Lock) and, in AT-class machines, control the corresponding lock-state indicator lights on the keyboard, and to perform other similar interpretive and management functions for the keyboard. In contrast, the ordinary capabilities of the standard PC and PC-AT keyboard hardware are limited to reporting to the system each primitive event of an individual key being pressed or released (i.e. making a transition from the "released" state to the "depressed" state or vice versa), performing a commanded reset and self-test of the keyboard unit, and, for AT-class keyboards, executing a command from the host system to set the absolute states of the lock-state indicators (LEDs).

Calling BIOS: BIOS software interrupts
Operating systems and other software communicate with the BIOS software, in order to control the installed hardware, via software interrupts. A software interrupt is a specific variety of the general concept of an interrupt. An interrupt is a mechanism by which the CPU can be directed to stop executing the main-line program and immediately execute a special program, called an Interrupt Service Routine (ISR), instead. Once the ISR finishes, the CPU continues with the main program. On x86 CPUs, when an interrupt occurs, the ISR to call is found by looking it up in a table of ISR starting-point addresses (called "interrupt vectors") in memory: the Interrupt vector table (IVT). An interrupt is invoked by its type number, from 0 to 255, and the type number is used as an index into the Interrupt Vector Table, and at that index in the table is found the address of the ISR that will be run in response to the interrupt. A software interrupt is simply an interrupt that is triggered by a software command; therefore, software interrupts function like subroutines, with the main difference that the program that makes a software interrupt call does not need to know the address of the ISR, only its interrupt number. This has advantages for modularity, compatibility, and flexibility in system configuration.

BIOS interrupt calls can be thought of as a mechanism for passing messages between BIOS and BIOS client software such as an operating system. The messages request data or action from BIOS and return the requested data, status information, and/or the product of the requested action to the caller. The messages are broken into categories, each with its own interrupt number, and most categories contain sub-categories, called "functions" and identified by "function numbers". A BIOS client passes most information to BIOS in CPU registers, and receives most information back the same way, but data too large to fit in registers, such as tables of control parameters or disk sector data for disk transfers, is passed by allocating a buffer (i.e. some space) in memory and passing the address of the buffer in registers. (Sometimes multiple addresses of data items in memory may be passed in a data structure in memory, with the address of that structure passed to BIOS in registers.) The interrupt number is specified as the parameter of the software interrupt instruction (in Intel assembly language, an "INT" instruction), and the function number is specified in the AH register; that is, the caller sets the AH register to the number of the desired function. In general, the BIOS services corresponding to each interrupt number operate independently of each other, but the functions within one interrupt service are handled by the same BIOS program and are not independent. (This last point is relevant to reentrancy.)

The BIOS software usually returns to the caller with an error code if not successful, or with a status code and/or requested data if successful. The data itself can be as small as one bit or as large as 65,536 bytes of whole raw disk sectors (the maximum that will fit into one real-mode memory segment). BIOS has been expanded and enhanced over the years many times by many different corporate entities, and unfortunately the result of this evolution is that not all the BIOS functions that can be called use consistent conventions for formatting and communicating data or for reporting results. Some BIOS functions report detailed status information, while others may not even report success or failure but just return silently, leaving the caller to assume success (or to test the outcome some other way). Sometimes it can also be difficult to determine whether or not a certain BIOS function call is supported by the BIOS on a certain computer, or what the limits of a call's parameters are on that computer. (For some invalid function numbers, or valid function numbers with invalid values of key parameters—particularly with an early IBM BIOS version—the BIOS may do nothing and return with no error code; then it is the [inconvenient but inevitable] responsibility of the caller either to avoid this case by not making such calls, or to positively test for an expected effect of the call rather than assuming that the call was effective. Because BIOS has evolved extensively in many steps over its history, a function that is valid in one BIOS version from some certain vendor may not be valid in an earlier or divergent BIOS version from the same vendor or in a BIOS version—of any relative age—from a different vendor.)

Because BIOS interrupt calls use CPU register-based parameter passing, the calls are oriented to being made from assembly language and cannot be directly made from most high-level languages (HLLs). However, a high level language may provide a library of wrapper routines which translate parameters from the form (usually stack-based) used by the high-level language to the register-based form required by BIOS, then back to the HLL calling convention after the BIOS returns. In some variants of C, BIOS calls can be made using inline assembly language within a C module. (Support for inline assembly language is not part of the ANSI C standard but is a language extension; therefore, C modules that use inline assembly language are less portable than pure ANSI standard C modules.)

Invoking an interrupt
Invoking an interrupt can be done using the INT x86 assembly language instruction. For example, to print a character to the screen using BIOS interrupt 0x10, the following x86 assembly language instructions could be executed:

Interrupt table
A list of common BIOS interrupt classes can be found below. Note that some BIOSes (particularly old ones) do not implement all of these interrupt classes.

The BIOS also uses some interrupts to relay hardware event interrupts to programs which choose to receive them or to route messages for its own use. The table below includes only those BIOS interrupts which are intended to be called by programs (using the "INT" assembly-language software interrupt instruction) to request services or information.

INT 18h: execute BASIC
INT 18h traditionally jumped to an implementation of Cassette BASIC (provided by Microsoft) stored in Option ROMs. This call would typically be invoked if the BIOS was unable to identify any bootable disk volumes on startup.

At the time the original IBM PC (IBM machine type 5150) was released in 1981, the BASIC in ROM was a key feature. Contemporary popular personal computers such as the Commodore 64 and the Apple II line also had Microsoft Cassette BASIC in ROM (though Commodore renamed their licensed version Commodore BASIC), so in a substantial portion of its intended market, the IBM PC needed BASIC to compete. As on those other systems, the IBM PC's ROM BASIC served as a primitive diskless operating system, allowing the user to load, save, and run programs, as well as to write and refine them. (The original IBM PC was also the only PC model from IBM that, like its aforementioned two competitors, included cassette interface hardware. A base model IBM PC had only 16 KiB of RAM and no disk drives [of any kind], so the cassette interface and BASIC in ROM were essential to make the base model usable.  An IBM PC with less than 32 KiB of RAM is incapable of booting from disk.  Of the five 8 KiB ROM chips in an original IBM PC, totaling 40 KiB, four contain BASIC and only one contains the BIOS; when only 16 KiB of RAM are installed, the ROM BASIC accounts for over half of the total system memory [4/7ths, to be precise].)

As time went on and BASIC was no longer shipped on all PCs, this interrupt would simply display an error message indicating that no bootable volume was found (famously, "No ROM BASIC", or more explanatory messages in later BIOS versions); in other BIOS versions it would prompt the user to insert a bootable volume and press a key, and then after the user pressed a key it would loop back to the bootstrap loader (INT 19h) to try booting again.

Digital's Rainbow 100B used INT 18h to call its BIOS, which was incompatible with the IBM BIOS. Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++ repurposed INT 18 for memory allocation and paging. Other programs also reused this vector for their own purposes.

DOS
On DOS systems, IO.SYS or IBMBIO.COM hooks INT 13 for floppy disk change detection, tracking formatting calls, correcting DMA boundary errors, and working around problems in IBM's ROM BIOS "01/10/84" with model code 0xFC before the first call.

Bypassing BIOS
Many modern operating systems (such as Linux and Windows) do not use any BIOS interrupt calls at all after startup, instead choosing to directly interface with the hardware. To do this, they rely upon drivers that are either a part of the OS kernel itself, ship along with the OS, or are provided by hardware vendors.

There are several reasons for this practice. Most significant is that modern operating systems run with the processor in protected (or long) mode, whereas the BIOS code will only execute in real mode. This means that if an OS running in protected mode wanted to make a BIOS call, it would have to first switch into real mode, then execute the call and wait for it to return, and finally switch back to protected mode. This would be terribly slow and inefficient. Code that runs in real mode (including the BIOS) is limited to accessing just over 1 MiB of memory, due to using 16-bit segmented memory addressing. Additionally, the BIOS is generally not the fastest way to carry out any particular task. In fact, the speed limitations of the BIOS made it common even in the DOS era for programs to circumvent it in order to avoid its performance limitations, especially for video graphics display and fast serial communication.

Beyond the above factors, problems with BIOS functionality include limitations in the range of functions defined, inconsistency in the subsets of those functions supported on different computers, and variations in the quality of BIOSes (i.e. some BIOSes are complete and reliable, others are abridged and buggy). By taking matters into their own hands and avoiding reliance on BIOS, operating system developers can eliminate some of the risks and complications they face in writing and supporting system software. On the other hand, by doing so those developers become responsible for providing "bare-metal" driver software for every different system or peripheral device they intend for their operating system to work with (or for inducing the hardware producers to provide those drivers).

Thus it should be apparent that compact operating systems developed on small budgets would tend to use BIOS heavily, while large operating systems built by huge groups of software engineers with large budgets would more often opt to write their own drivers instead of using BIOS—that is, even without considering the compatibility problems of BIOS and protected mode.

title: BIOS interrupt call


text:
User talk:Jeremyatcu1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:Jeremyatcu1


text:
1978 in rail transport

February events

 * February 9 - Budd unveils its first SPV-2000 self-propelled railcar in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 * February 22 - The Waverly tank car explosion was an explosion that occurred in Waverly, Tennessee, following a train derailment incident days earlier. The explosion killed 16.

March events

 * March 1
 * Australian National takes over Tasmanian Government Railways and freight and non-metropolitan operations of South Australian Railways.
 * Amtrak opens Midway station in Saint Paul, Minnesota and closes the Minneapolis Great Northern Depot. The Twin Cities Hiawatha and Arrowhead trains are combined into the North Star.
 * The M-K TE70-4S makes its first revenue run, handling a Southern Pacific Seattle–Los Angeles trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) train between Portland and Los Angeles.
 * March 16 – An extension of the Tozai Subway Line from Kita-Nijūyo-Jō Station to Asabu Station in Sapporo, Japan, opens for service.
 * March 31 – In Tokyo, Japan
 * A 1 km extension of the Tokyo Metro Chiyoda Line to Yoyogi-Uehara station is opened.
 * The Hanzomon Line is opened between Shibuya and Aoyama-itchome.
 * March - Pacific Fruit Express dissolves its fleet of refrigerator cars, which is distributed between Southern Pacific and Union Pacific.

July events

 * July 6 - A plastic bag of dirty linen carelessly placed against the electric heater in the vestibule of a British Rail sleeping car traveling between Penzance and London Paddington, England causes the Taunton train fire.

September events

 * September 12 - The longest tunnel in New Zealand (8,896m), the Kaimai Tunnel on the East Coast Main Trunk opened.

October events

 * October 29 - Via Rail assumes all passenger train operations of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in Canada.
 * October 31 - The last passenger train departs from St Louis Union Terminal.

November events

 * November 7 - The Illinois Railway Museum celebrates its 25th anniversary.
 * November 18 - The Merivale Bridge is opened connecting South Brisbane and Roma Street and unifying the Brisbane suburban network. Originally designed to carry both narrow gauge and standard gauge tracks, the latter was not added until 1986.

December events

 * December 3 - The Southern Crescent passenger train derails at Shipman, Virginia, killing 6, injuring 60.
 * December 4 - Union Pacific and Chicago & North Western jointly announce an agreement to build into Wyoming's Powder River Basin to access the numerous coal mines in the area.
 * December 21 – The first phase of the Toei Shinjuku Line is opened from Iwamotocho to Higashi-ojima in Tokyo, Japan.
 * December 31 - The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad operates its last passenger trains, the Peorian and a Chicago to Rock Island train.

Unknown date events

 * The Stone Arch Bridge built by the Great Northern Railway across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota sees its final use as a railroad bridge; the bridge is later converted for pedestrian and bicycle use.
 * The Itel Corporation purchases the Green Bay & Western.

May deaths

 * May - Harold W. Burtness, president Chicago Great Western Railway 1946–1948, dies (b. 1879).

July deaths

 * July 22 - André Chapelon, French steam locomotive designer (b. 1892).

title: 1978 in rail transport


text:
User talk:KeithV

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blunsdon United, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain (football) and Le Pen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blunsdon United

A tag has been placed on Blunsdon United, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. C679 16:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ACME Animation Factory in-play.png
Thanks for uploading File:ACME Animation Factory in-play.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:KeithV


text:
Student Bodies

Student Bodies is a 1981 American parody slasher comedy film written and directed by Mickey Rose, with an uncredited Michael Ritchie co-directing. A spoof of slasher horror films such as Halloween, Friday the 13th and Prom Night, Student Bodies was the first film to satirize the thriving slasher film genre. A prominent feature of the film is a body count that is superimposed onscreen whenever a death occurs.

The film depicts the Breather, a serial killer who stalks and preys on high school students. Eventually, the majority of the film's events are depicted as part of the fevered dream of a sexually repressed hospital patient. But the patient's boyfriend then turns out to be a Breather-like killer. The patient's violent death resembles the scenes from her dreams.

Plot
Student Bodies is about a serial killer who stalks students at Lamab High School, while at the same time, voyeuristically watching them. The killer calls himself "the Breather", presumably because the killer is always breathing heavily.

The Breather enjoys stalking victims over the telephone and hates seeing youngsters having sex. The Breather uses many unusual objects to kill his female victims such as a paper clip, a chalkboard eraser and a horsehead bookend.

The film itself ends with several twists: initially, it is revealed that the Principal and his elderly female assistant are working as a duo as "the Breather", even though they are shown at one point in the film in the same room as other characters when the Breather contacts the school in order to threaten to commit further murders. The film then goes to reveal that the entire film was a fevered dream, caused by the main character Toby being sick and consumed by overwhelming sexual repression. In a send-up of the film The Wizard of Oz, many characters are revealed to be much the opposite of what they appeared to be for the bulk of the film: the jock-like shop instructor is really the school's French teacher, the stuck-up would-be prom queen is actually the school nerd (who is given the crown by Toby after she wakes up, due to her kind nature), the two handicapped kids turn out to be ablebodied, and a local ROTC cadet is a hippie.

After being released from the hospital, Toby and her boyfriend are about to have sex, at which point he puts on gloves similar to the ones worn by the Breather and strangles Toby, as he has lost respect for her. However, in a homage to the nightmare-ending of the film Carrie, Toby's hands rise up from the freshly dug grave after her funeral to attack her killer.

Cast

 * Kristen Riter as Toby Badger
 * Matt Goldsby as Hardy
 * Cullen G. Chambers as Charles Ray
 * Richard Belzer as the Breather (credited as Richard Brando)
 * Joe Flood as Mr. Dumpkin
 * Joe Talarowski as Principal Harlow Hebrew Peters
 * Mimi Weddell as Miss Mumsley
 * Dario Jones as Mawamba
 * Carl Jacobs as Dr. Sigmund
 * Peggy Cooper as Ms. Van Dyke
 * Janice E. O'Malley as Nurse Krud
 * Kevin Mannis as Scott
 * Sara Eckhardt as Patti Priswell
 * Oscar James as Football Coach/Sheriff
 * Kay Ogden as Ms. Leclair
 * "The Stick" as Malvert The Janitor
 * Brian Batytis as Wheels
 * Joan Browning Jacobs as Mrs. Hummers
 * Angela Bressler as Julie
 * Keith Singleton as Charlie

Production
Student Bodies features a cast of true unknowns; most of them, including leads Riter and Goldsby, have never made another feature film. (Riter did appear as a dancer in the J. Geils Band's "Centerfold" music video; her resemblance to MTV's Martha Quinn led to an urban legend that the VJ was in the video.) Third-billed Cullen Chambers has appeared in numerous films and TV shows since 1981, but his main employment has been as a body double for such actors as Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker. The best-known performer in the film is probably Mimi Weddell, an actress in her 60s who later went on to play several roles on film and TV, including a grandmother in the hit series Sex and the City. Future Travis County Judge and Texas State Senator Sarah Eckhardt appears in a small role, while comedian Richard Belzer was the voice of the Breather.

Mickey Rose wrote and directed the film, with executive producer Jerry Belson offering additional material; however, Michael Ritchie was placed on set as an overseeing producer to guide Rose should he need it. Some sources say that Ritchie was actually the co-director/writer and had to take the "Alan Smithee" credit due to a strike by the Writers Guild of America; others maintain that he took said credit to distance himself from the project. Mickey Rose was (and is) also a WGA member and received full credit; this would seem to debunk the "union problem" rumors.

R-rating
Student Bodies contains no sex, nudity, graphic violence or even foul language—until 26 minutes into the film, when the action is interrupted by a man sitting at a desk. He explains that, in order to achieve an R-rating, a film "must contain full frontal nudity, graphic violence, or an explicit reference to the sex act". He intones that R-rated films are by far the most popular, so "the producers of this motion picture have asked me to take this opportunity to say... 'Fuck you'". A slide indicating that the film has been indeed given an R-rating by the MPAA appears for a few seconds (a rare instance of the MPAA rating appearing during a film), after which the film continues.

Parodies
The film parodies several slasher and horror films, including Carnival of Souls, Black Christmas, Carrie, Halloween, When a Stranger Calls, The Shining, Friday the 13th and Prom Night.

"The Stick"
One of the film's oddest aspects is a character called Malvert, a creepy-looking janitor (itself a familiar trope in slasher films). Malvert mumbles, does bizarre things like urinate into wastepaper baskets ("Sometimes Malvert pee red!" being one of the film's more memorable lines) and moves about in a herky-jerky fashion (at film's end, Malvert is revealed to be something of a sophisticate; when Toby informs him that he was a janitor in her dream, he responds, "Absurd!").

Malvert was played by a tall, double-jointed stand-up comedian known only as "the Stick", who made no other films; his only other credit seems to be as a guest appearance in the pilot episode on the 1984 TV series Out of Control. Several online reviews give the film itself a mixed reaction, but praise the Stick's performance.

Filming locations
Lamar Consolidated Junior High School in Richmond, Texas – called Lamab in the film (not to be confused with Lamar High School in Houston, Texas which is known for its use in the film Rushmore) - and James E. Taylor High School in Katy, Texas were used for the film's football stadium, as well as for exterior and some interior scenes. The parade scene was filmed in downtown Houston, on Main Street. Additional scenes were filmed on the campus of Texas Southern University, with Hannah Hall (the administration building) used for classroom and hallway shots. Members of TSU's football team were also used in the movie.

The 1980 Thomas Jefferson High School Yellow Jackets football team sporting their maroon and gold school colors played the visiting football team in the film.

Release
One of a group of films directed towards teenaged audiences during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Student Bodies grossed $5.2 million at the box office. It became famous as a late-night cult favorite on cable afterwards, appearing frequently on the Rhonda Shear-hosted USA Up All Night, as well as the network's USA Saturday Nightmares double feature series. The DVD was released on June 3, 2007. The HD Blu-ray version was released on May 3, 2011.

Critical reception
Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the film "a real disappointment", writing that it "just slowly topples over as you watch it, like a stand-up comedian in the act of failing". Variety found that the jokes became "depressingly repetitive", writing that "unfortunately, once you've seen the trailer, you've seen all but one of the good gags included in the entire film, meaning that there are about three minutes of effective material over the course of the 86-minute running time". Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave it two stars out of four, writing that it "exposes all its comic tricks in the first reel, suggesting that the genre itself is not all that deep and that there may be less to parody than one might think". Linda Gross of the Los Angeles Times wrote: "The film has some very funny moments, but it is definitely not another Airplane!". Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote: "Although it frequently misfires and occasionally keeps firing away on empty satiric chambers, Student Bodies is a likeably sarcastic and knowing assault on the clichés of horror movies". AllMovie wrote, "Student Bodies, though occasionally very funny, is not consistent enough to recommend as a comedy or scary enough to be an effective horror film."

title: Student Bodies


text:
Zoomorphology

Zoomorphology is a quarterly academic journal published by Springer-Verlag Germany of Berlin, Germany. The journal has been published earlier under names Zoomorphologie, Zeitschrift für Morphologie der Tiere, and Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere.

According to EBSCOhost, it "features original papers based on morphological investigation of invertebrates and vertebrates at the macroscopic, microscopic and ultrastructural levels, including embryological studies."

title: Zoomorphology


text:
Flexure

A flexure is a flexible element (or combination of elements) engineered to be compliant in specific degrees of freedom. Flexures are a design feature used by design engineers (usually mechanical engineers) for providing adjustment or compliance in a design.

Flexure types
Most compound flexure designs are composed of three fundamental types of flexure:

 * Pin flexure - a thin bar or cylinder of material, constrains three degrees of freedom when geometry matches a notch cutout
 * Blade flexure - thin sheet of material, constrains three degrees of freedom
 * Notch flexure - thin cutout on both sides of a thick piece of material, constrains five degrees of freedom

Since single flexure features are limited both in travel capability and degrees of freedom available, compound flexure systems are designed using combinations of these component features. Using compound flexures, complex motion profiles with specific degrees of freedom and relatively long travel distances are possible.

Design aspects
In the field of precision engineering (especially high-precision motion control), flexures have several key advantages. High precision alignment tasks might not be possible when friction or stiction are present. Additionally, conventional bearings or linear slides often exhibit positioning hysteresis due to backlash and friction. Flexures are able to achieve much lower resolution limits (in some cases measured in the nanometer scale), because they depend on bending and/or torsion of flexible elements, rather than surface interaction of many parts (as with a ball bearing). This makes flexures a critical design feature used in optical instrumentation such as interferometers.

Due to their mode of action, flexures are used for limited range motions and cannot replace long-travel or continuous-rotation adjustments. Additionally, special care must be taken to design the flexure to avoid material yielding or fatigue, both of which are potential failure modes in a flexure design.

Design examples

 * Living hinge: Flexure which acts as a hinge. Preferred for their simplicity, as they can be included as a feature in a single piece of material (as in a Tic Tac box's lid).
 * Leaf spring: Leaf Springs are commonly used in vehicle suspensions. Leaf springs are an example of a flexure system with one compliant degree of freedom.
 * Flex Pivot: Frictionless pivoting component, for use in precision alignment applications.
 * NASA's Mars Exploration Rovers and the Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity have engineered flexures in their wheels which act as vibration isolation and suspension for the rovers.

title: Flexure


text:
Zygon (journal)

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering religion and science published by Wiley-Blackwell. It was established in 1966 and the editor-in-chief is Arthur C. Petersen (University College London). Zygon is sponsored by the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science and the Center for Advanced Study in Religion and Science (CASIRAS).

The name "Zygon" (mod. L., ad. ζυγόν Gr. yoke.), according to the journal founder Ralph Wendell Burhoe, is the Greek term for anything that joins two bodies, especially the yoking or harnessing of a team that must pull together effectively. The Zygon is the symbol of the journal, its aim being to reunite the "split team" of values and knowledge.

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2016 impact factor of 0.617, ranking it 31st out of 41 journals (Q4) in the category "Social Issues".

title: Zygon (journal)


text:
1923 in rail transport

January events

 * January 1 – All major railways in Great Britain are amalgamated into the "Big Four" companies, the Great Western Railway, London & North Eastern Railway, London, Midland & Scottish Railway and Southern Railway, under terms of Railways Act 1921.
 * January 30 – Canadian National (CN) absorbs the Grand Trunk Railway and spins off the portion of the Grand Trunk within the United States to form the Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTW); CN operates GTW as a subsidiary railroad. National ownership encourages freight rates favoring use of Canadian seaports in the Maritimes, and causes declining freight volumes over the New England line to Grand Trunk seaport facilities in Portland, Maine.

February events

 * February 7 – London & North Eastern Railway (Great Britain) takes delivery of express passenger 4-6-2 steam locomotive Flying Scotsman from its Doncaster Works.

March events

 * March 10 – Norfolk & Western Railroad (United States) takes delivery of its first Y3a Class 2-8-8-2 steam locomotive from ALCO.

April events

 * April 1 – Yamaguchi Line, Ogori (Shin-Yamaguchi) to Masuda route officially completed in Japan, a direct passenger express service start from October 1961.

July events

 * July 6 – Ongarue railway disaster: In New Zealand, about 6:00 am, the southbound Auckland to Wellington express rounds a sharp bend and ploughs into a landslip which had fallen across the railway line near Ongarue, just north of Taumarunui. 17 passengers die and 28 others are injured.
 * July 11 – The Ofoten Line in Norway takes electric traction into use.
 * July 15 – Warren G. Harding, President of the United States, drives the golden spike on the Alaska Railroad.
 * July 18 – In the United States, Fruit Growers Express (FGE) and the Great Northern Railway form the Western Fruit Express (WFE) in order to compete with the Pacific Fruit Express and Santa Fe Refrigerator Despatch in the west.
 * July 20 – First Victorian Railways electric locomotive, #1100 built at its Newport Workshops, is placed into freight service in Melbourne, Australia.

August events

 * August 1 – City of Glasgow (Scotland) takes over operation of the Glasgow Subway.
 * August 4 – The Otira Tunnel (8.5 km) on the Midland Line in New Zealand opens, worked by electric traction; construction had started in 1907 and at opening it is the longest in the British Empire (and remains the longest in South Island).
 * August 11 – Great Western Railway (Great Britain) places the first of its 'Castle' Class 4-6-0 express passenger steam locomotives from its Swindon Works, No. 4073 Caerphilly Castle, into service.

September events

 * September 27 – Following soon after the washout of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad's bridge over Coal Creek (near Glenrock, Wyoming), a passenger train falls through the washout, killing 30 of the train's 66 passengers. The accident is the worst railroad accident in Wyoming's history.

Unknown date events

 * U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission allows Southern Pacific's control of the Central Pacific Railroad to continue, ruling that it is in the public's interest.
 * Munising, Marquette & Southeastern Railway and Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railway merge to form the Lake Superior & Ishpeming Railroad.
 * The Gold Coast Government Railway's Accra–Kumasi direct line is completed.

Unknown date births

 * Robert R. Dowty, construction foreman for the Jupiter and 119 steam locomotive replicas at the Golden Spike National Historic Site at Promontory, Utah (died 2004).
 * Margaret Landry Moore, "Miss Southern Belle" spokesmodel for Kansas City Southern's Southern Belle passenger trains (died 2005).
 * Frank Turpin, CEO of Alaska Railroad, 1985–1993 (died 2005).

April deaths

 * April 10 – Stuyvesant Fish, president of Illinois Central 1887–1907 (born 1851).

May deaths

 * May 16 – George Jay Gould I, eldest son of Jay Gould, president of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad and the Western Pacific Railroad (born 1864).

October deaths

 * October 25 – Henry Ivatt, Chief Mechanical Engineer of Great Northern Railway of England 1896–1911 (born 1851).

December deaths

 * December 5 – Sir William Mackenzie, part owner of Toronto Street Railway, builder of Canadian Northern predecessors (born 1849).
 * December 10 – Thomas George Shaughnessy, president of Canadian Pacific 1899–1918 (born 1853).

title: 1923 in rail transport


text:
Reading readiness

Reading readiness has been defined as the point at which a person is ready to learn to read and the time during which a person transitions from being a non-reader into a reader. Other terms for reading readiness include early literacy and emergent reading.

Children begin to learn pre-reading skills at birth while they listen to the speech around them. In order to learn to read, a child must first have knowledge of the oral language. According to the Ontario Government (2003), the acquisition of language is natural, but the process of learning to read is not—reading must be taught. This belief contradicts basic language philosophy, which states that children learn to read while they learn to speak. The Ontario Government (2003) also believes that reading is the foundation for success, and that those children who struggle with reading in grades 1–3 are at a disadvantage in terms of academic success, compared to those children who are not struggling.

Because a child's early experience with literacy-related activities is highly correlated to the child's success with reading, it is important to consider a child's developmental level when choosing appropriate activities and goals. Early and enjoyable pre-reading experiences set the stage for a child's desire to learn. By participating in developmentally-appropriate activities (activities that are fun and challenging, but not frustrating), the child gains knowledge that will serve as the foundation for further learning as he or she enters the school system.

Reading readiness is highly individualistic. There is no "one size fits all" solution to teaching a child to read. A parent or educator may need to employ several techniques before finding the most appropriate method for an individual child. According to Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development a child can, through the help of an adult or more capable child, perform at a higher level than he or she can independently. The process of learning to read should thus be supported by a caring and supportive individual.

Reading readiness skills
Skills that indicate whether a child is ready to learn to read include:

 * Age-appropriate oral language development and vocabulary
 * Appreciation of stories and books
 * Phonemic awareness (ability to distinguish and manipulate individual sounds of language)
 * Understanding of basic print concepts (for example, printed text represents spoken words; spaces between words are meaningful; pages written in English are read left to right starting at the top of the page; books have a title and an author, and so on).
 * Understanding of the alphabetic principle (letters represent the sounds of language)
 * Ability to distinguish shapes (visual discrimination)
 * Ability to identify at least some letters of the alphabet.

Instructional programs for reading
Whole language: With this model, language is kept whole rather than segmented into fragments or skills. Within this philosophy, children are expected to learn to read and write in the same manner that they learn to talk. Reading, writing and oral language are considered to be intertwined. Some strategies according to the whole language model include encouraging the child to learn to read by "reading," and making up stories that they think go along with the pictures in the book. This model also believes that adults should allow the child to witness reading behaviors, such as holding a book properly. It is also important for adults to model these behaviors in an environment that is free from criticism (Matthews, Klassen and Walter, 1999). An early proponent of whole language reading instruction called reading a "psycholinguistic guessing game," and thus children are taught to guess words that they don't know by using context clues. Skipping unknown words is encouraged, and "inventive" spelling is also acceptable.

Phonics: This approach involves teaching the correspondence between graphemes (spelling patterns) and phonemes (sounds).

Some suggestions for reading skills

 * Read to the child.
 * Have the child "read" to you. Allow the child to create their own story based on the pictures they see within the book.
 * Reread stories multiple times.
 * Omit words of a familiar story and allow the child to fill in the blank.
 * Allow the child to experiment with words.
 * Point to the words on the page as you read out loud to the child. This enables the child to understand that sentences consist of separate words.

Influential perspectives
The two most influential perspectives are the growth-readiness view and the environmentalist view. The growth-readiness view focuses on the internal workings of the child in order to determine readiness, while environmentalists focus on the external environment. Both internal factors such as genetics and environmental aspects such as school atmosphere can influence a child's readiness for reading.

title: Reading readiness


text:
Michal Hvorecký

Michal Hvorecky (born 29 December 1976) is a Slovak author.

He is the author of two collections of short stories: Strong sense of Cleanliness (1998) and Hunters & Gatherers (2001). His novel The Final Hit appeared in 2003, Plush in 2005 (published in 2006 in German translation as City: Der unwahrscheinlichste aller Orte) and Eskorta in 2007 (will be published in 2009 in German translation).

His books have been translated into German, Polish, Czech and Italian. Translations of his fiction and journalism have appeared in print in Germany, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. The novel Plush was dramatised and performed in the Prague theatre Na zabradli and in Schauspiel Hannover in Germany. In addition, Hvorecky writes regularly for various newspapers and magazines.

He has been awarded several literary prizes and fellowships, including the Literary Colloquium in Berlin, MuseumsQuartier in Vienna, Goethe Institut in Munich, and an International Writing Program in the United States.

The author also contributes to Slovak newspapers such as daily SME. Some of his articles translated into English can be found at the webportal Salon.

In 2000 he co-founded the Wilsonic Festival in Bratislava with Tibor Holoda and served as one of its co-organizers until 2001.

He lives in Bratislava, Slovakia.

Works

 * The end of the economic miracle by Michal Hvorecký, English, June 2009

title: Michal Hvorecký


text:
Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik

The Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik (English: Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics) is a bimonthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Birkhäuser Verlag. The editor-in-chief is Kaspar Nipp (ETH Zurich). It was established in 1950 and covers the fields of theoretical and applied mechanics, applied mathematics, and related topics. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2017 impact factor of 1.711.


text:
Argentan

Argentan is a commune and the seat of two cantons and of an arrondissement in the Orne department in northwestern France. As of 2019, Argentan is the third largest municipality by population in the Orne department.

Geography
The commune of Argentan is made up of the town of Argentan and the following villages and hamlets, La Croix de Coulandon, Coulandon and Mauvaisville.

Argentan has 5 water courses running through it, three rivers The Orne, The Ure and The Baize and two streams, the Marais de Fleuriel and the Fontaines Thiot.

Location
Argentan is located 180 km NE of Rennes, 131 km ENE of the Mont Saint-Michel, 188 km SE of Cherbourg, 58 km SSE of Caen, 133 km SW of Rouen and 100 km N of Le Mans. Argentan station has rail connections to Caen, Le Mans, Paris and Granville.

History
Argentan is situated near the river Orne. Although the region was heavily populated during the Gallo Roman period the town is not mentioned until 1025–1026. The toponym comes from the Gaulish words argentos ("silver") and magos ("market"). The town grew in importance during the Middle Ages.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Argentan alternated between prosperity and destruction, as English forces occupied the city several times. The Plantagenets had considered this town as one of the most important of Normandy.

During the reign of Louis XIV, Colbert set Alençon against Argentan in an economic competition on lace making. Thus, the point d'Argentan ("Argentan stitch") and the point d'Alençon ("Alençon stitch") were created. Argentan became a very important town for traditional industry. It also gained in religious importance with the building of a Benedictine Abbey and two churches, Saint-Martin and Saint-Germain. Several mansions (hôtels particuliers) were also built.

During World War I, the French 104th Infantry Regiment/14th Infantry Brigade was stationed at Argentan. It participated in the battle of Verdun in 1916.

During World War II, the city was almost totally destroyed. On 5 June 1944, on the eve of the Allied D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy, the city suffered an important air raid in which the train station was destroyed. The city suffered further damage when it was bombed on 6 and 7 June by B-17 and B-24 bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force. The greatest part of the city was, however, left in ruins two and a half months later, at the end of August, during the battle of the Argentan-Falaise Pocket. The U.S. Third Army, under the command of general George S. Patton liberated Argentan after eight days of violent combat against the German 9th Panzer Division and the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. The U.S. 80th Infantry Division liberated the city in the morning of 20 August.

Main sights and notable buildings

 * Donjon of Argentan - Ramparts of Argentan built in the Middle Ages by Henri I. It was classed as a Monument historique in 1945.
 * Tour Marguerite - a 12th century medieval tower built by Henri I. It was classed as a Monument Historique in 1965.
 * Castle of the Dukes - a 14th century castle built by Pierre II of Alençon, it is now a court house. it was classed as a monument historique in 1889. The grounds of the castle houses the 14th century St. Nicholas Chapel, which is also classed as a monument historique.
 * Saint Martin church - built in the 16th century it was listed as monument historique in 1862.
 * Saint Germain church - 15th century church listed as monument historique in 1889.
 * Saint Roch Chapel

National Heritage sites
The Commune has a total of 18 buildings and areas listed as a Monument historique in addition to the 6 listed above there are:

 * Hotel du Moulin de Fontenelle - 18th Century L-shaped Hotel, added as a monument in 2004.
 * Former Hotel Servain - 17th Century Hotel, whose door was added as a monument in 1948.
 * Henri IV House - Built in 1623 it served as the town hall from 1722 to 1809, it was classified in 1946.
 * Hôtel Ango-de-la-Motte - Former seventeenth century Hotel, it was classified in 1948.
 * Three Crosses Column - erected in 1771, the three crosses are believed to be either to mark the meeting place of three 12th century kings, commemorate the expulsion of the English in 1450, or to redeem the vandalism of Theodore Beza in 1563.
 * Statue of the Virgin - erected in 1648 it was registered in 1934
 * Former residence of the Abbess of the Benedictines - erected in 1623 it was built to receive novices from Almenêches Abbey to replace former nuns who died and those who had opposed the establishment of the new customs of the Reformation. It was registered in 1932.
 * Count of Lonlay - former 17th century hotel, which was registered in 1948
 * Norman house - 14th century house, which was registered in 1948
 * Lemonnier house - 14th century house, which was registered in 1948
 * Aumont-de-la-Vente Hotel - former 17th century hotel, where James II of England stayed in 1692, during his period of exile.  Classed as a Monument historique in 1948.
 * Former church of Notre-Dame-de-la-Place - former 12th century church for Medieval pilgrims, that was sold in 1820 and became a dwelling house. It became a monument historique in 1986.

Museums

 * Maison Des Dentelles Museum dedicated to Argentan lace'''
 * Museum of Fernand Léger – André Mare Museum dedicated to Fernand Léger and André Mare, two major 20th century artists from Argentan

Other points of interest

 * Carrière de Belle-Eau is an old quarry for the extraction of sand, that was closed shortly after World War two, which was bought by the commune in 1989. In 1995 the area was turned into an 18 960 m2 nature reserve. The site today hosts nearly 200 different species of flora and fauna, including thyme broomrape, Common parsley frog, Smooth newt and leopard marsh orchid.

Notable people

 * William FitzEmpress (1136 -1164) - the youngest of the three sons of Empress Matilda and Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou was born here.
 * Giles d'Argentan (c. 1280 – 24 June 1314), Norman knight who was killed at the Battle of Bannockburn
 * John II, Duke of Alençon (1409-1476), was a French nobleman born here, and best known as a general in the Last Phase of the Hundred Years' War and for his role as a comrade-in-arms of Joan of Arc.
 * Margaret of Lorraine (1463 - 1521) - A French noblewoman and a nun of the order of Poor Clares who was beatified in 1921, died here.
 * Guillaume Mahot (1630 - 1684) - served as the Apostolic Vicar of Cochin, was born here.
 * Marguerite de Lubert (1702 - 1785) a French woman of letters died here.
 * Charles-Alexis Chauvet (1837 - 1871) a French organist and composer died here.
 * Vincent Muselli (1879-1956) a French writer and poet was born here.
 * Fernand Léger (1881–1955), painter was born in Argentan
 * André Mare (1885–1935), painter was born in Argentan
 * André Rouyer (1929-1994) a French actor was born here.
 * François Doubin - (1933 – 2019) a French politician and cabinet minister who lived and died here.
 * Gérard Saint (1935-1960) a bike racer who won the Combativity award in 1959 Tour de France was born here.
 * Richard Peduzzi (born 1945) a French scenographer was born here.
 * Michel Onfray (born 1959), writer and philosopher born here.
 * Franck Berrier (1984-2021), a former professional footballer was born here.

Transport

 * Argentan station has rail connections to Caen, Le Mans, Paris and Granville.
 * Aérodrome d'Argentan is an Aerodrome that was opened in 1946. Its ICAO airport code is LFAJ.
 * Route nationale 26 is a highway Argentan with connecting Verneuil-sur-Avre.

Twin towns – sister cities
Argentan is twinned with:
 * 🏴 Abingdon-on-Thames, England, United Kingdom
 * 🇭🇺 Baja, Hungary
 * 🇩🇪 Rotenburg an der Fulda, Germany

title: Argentan


text:
User talk:Cadwgan Gedrych

I'm interested in why you are so opposed to the Special Relativity article's second postulate treatment, and yet you don't go to the article to correct it. If the article is completely and demonstrably wrong on that point, people would support you if you corrected it. And why pretend to be two or three different editors? Slim

The Wiki Way is to Talk about major changes first. And I did not pretend to be 2 people; a colleague of mine made the second peer review vote. Cadwgan_Gedrych

 * That's the WikiWay up to a point. If you know there's a mistake in an article, you are meant to change it. See Verifiability Claims must be referenced, especially when challenged. You can remove that sentence (the second postulate experiment sentence). Cut and paste it onto the Talk page. Ask someone to provide a reference. Wait a week. If no reference is provided, delete the sentence. You'd be perfectly within your rights to do this. Or if there are different views on the extent to which the second postulate has been shown to be correct, then the sentence can be re-written.  X believes that . . . (reference) but Y maintains that . . .  (reference).  In other words, it should be written as though it were an academic paper. Slim

Thanks for the advice and explicit instructions; I'll carry them out Monday (12-13-2004). Cadwgan_Gedrych

 * I looked through the edit history and the person who added the claim seems to have been Sokane. I have therefore left a note on his Talk page and sent him an e-mail asking him to provide a reference. If he doesn't respond within a reasonable period, you are more than entitled to remove the claim and any of its implications.

 * Anyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia articles. The advice is "Be bold." In reality, most editors prefer to discuss issues on the Talk pages before making substantial changes. But if a claim is challenged, they must provide a reference, and it should be from a reputable (preferably peer-reviewed) journal, not from someone's weblog. Anyone who engages in an edit war with you by re-inserting an unsubstantiated claim is in the wrong, and you could approach first a mediator to help sort out the dispute, and if that doesn't work, the arbitration committee. Note also that no editor is allowed to revert an article more than three times in 24 hours (the so-called 3RR rule). If anyone does, they are subject to a ban of, I believe, 24 hours.  Other pages that might help you are: Accuracy dispute, Cite sources, Neutral point of view, No original research, and the one I gave you already, Verifiability. I'll let you know if I hear back from Sokane. Hope this helps. Slim 02:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

You have been very helpful. Many thanks! See my reply to your message to Sokane at "Sokane's place." Dec 13, 2004 Cadwgan_Gedrych

Good faith
Cadwgan -

You claim in a now archive talk:special relativity that you are acting "in good faith". I will acknowledge that you are sincere about your beliefs. However, while that is necessary to establish good faith, it is not sufficient.

You are trying to do battle against special relativity itself. However, this is not venue where you can do that. As a general rule, your viewpoints are excluded from Wikipedia as "original research". LIke it or not, part of acting in good faith is in censoring yourself so as to be productive member of this community. I am doing that with my own alternate ideas regading general relativity, and am productive here as a result. You, on the other hand, seem to want to use this as a venue for basking SR. That is not proper, and your bias in this are is a reason why you should rerfain from editing in that page (just as my bias against black holes keeps me from editing articles on them).

The bottom like is this: Wikipedia exists to documewnt human knowledge. It is not a part of general human knowledge that you are right in you assertions against SR or even that you may be right. Without that, your views do not belong here, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * [My reply to EMS:]
 * No, I am not trying to bash SR in this case, as should be evident from any or all of my current comments at the SR discussion page; I am simply pointing out the problems with the SR article's treatment of the 2nd postulate.

 * Can you show how to experimentally measure light's one-way speed between two clocks that are not moving relative to each other? The 2nd postulate portion of the SR article implied that this could be done.

 * Contrary to your sole rebuttal above, it is definitely a part of current human knowledge that no one has ever measured light's speed between two same-frame clocks, which is obviously the definitive light speed experiment, and the only one to which the 2nd postulate could have pertained to at the time it was given. Cadwgan Gedrych 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The Einstein synchonization procedure is based on c being uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference. So once the clocks are synchornized, your two-clock experiment is the measurement of the propagation time of the beam as it travels between the synchronized clocks.
 * However, this is not the only possible verification of the second postulate: It is known for instance that the Michelson-Morely experiment, the transverse Doppler effect, and the Kennedy-Thorndyke experients results combined can only be explained through special relativity. (See )  That in an of itself is a confirmation of the second postulate.
 * Overall, I am not impressed by you or your arguments. Most scientists (including myself) consider SR to be well verified.  That is what is important in the special relativity article.  --EMS | Talk 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To EMS: You said "two-clock experiment," as if it could actually be performed, or even had already been performed, but you cannot tell us how to perform it. What is wrong with this picture?

You claim above that things such as the MMx confirmed the second postulate, and could be explained only by SR. Neither of these claims is true according to relativists such as John A. Wheeler (who co-wrote "Spacetime Physics"), who stated that the extended Lorentzian theory can physically explain all known experimental results. (Whereas SR physically explains nothing at all.)

Yes, any null result is consistent with the second postulate, but as of today the only way Einstein's second postulate differs from the viable Lorentzian theory is in the case of light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks, a case which remains open.

Please see my latest stuff at the SR talk page. Cadwgan Gedrych 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * We are now solidly into the realm of WP:NOR. It is up to you to show where in a respectable publication your allegations are made.  If you cannot do that, then under Wikipedia policy your views are the ones that suspect.  Even for the Wheeler remark I would like to know the reference so that I can verify that it says what you claim it says.
 * Beyond that, you have blatantly chosen to ignore my description of how the two-clock measurement can be done, and my noting that it is a combination of three experiments that confirm special relativity as a whole. Between that and you blatant SR-bashing in saying that "SR ... explains nothing at all" leads me to conclude that arguing with you is a waste of time.  --EMS | Talk 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I quoted Einstein. If that is not respectable enough for you, then I would like to know what is. And you can check out Wheeler's book at the library. Also, many respectable sources have stated that special relativity is a theory of principle, not one of physical explanation, and I assumed that you were at least knowledgeable enough to know these simple facts. But you can easily prove them to yourself (I can only hope) by trying to tell us (for just one example) how the special relativity of relativity physically explains the Michelson-Morley experimental null result. I want a specific physical explanation, not a hand-waving, mathematical statement. And while you are at it, tell me exactly how Einstein's clocks differ from Galileo's. Cadwgan Gedrych 19:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC filed against DVdm
Please feel free to endorse it. See Requests for comment/DVdm. --EMS | Talk 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Special relativity
In talk:special relativity, you wrote:

 * The article's second postulate section still mentions measuring light's speed, but Einstein never mentioned doing this. What he did mention was presetting clocks to obtain a prechosen value "c." (This is given explicitly in John Wheeler's book Spacetime Physics, in case you need a ref.) (Of course, it was also stated by Einstein, but not as clearly as by Wheeler.) (Think about it: If the travel "time" is given up front, then there is no actual speed measurement being made.)

 * Do you honestly think the article is OK in this case? (And this is not the only major problem, as I have tried to point out.)

There are all kinds of things wrong here. For example:

 * The article's second postulate section still mentions measuring light's speed

No it does not mention measuring the speed. Instead it establishes a convention as to what the speed is. More important to the second posulate that any given value for the speed is light's motion being isotropic.

 * Here is the article's second postulate section:

"Second postulate - Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c) which is independent of the motion of the light source."

"The power of Einstein's argument stems from the manner in which he derived startling and seemingly implausible results from two simple assumptions that were founded on observation. An observer attempting to measure the speed of light's propagation will get the same answer no matter how the observer or the system's components are moving."

 * Do you not see the word "measure"? And where is anything about a convention?

 * What he did mention was presetting clocks to obtain a prechosen value "c."

Once again I disagree. Einstein outlined a procedure for synchronizing clocks which are at rest with respect to each other, and which assumes the validity of the second postulate in all frames of reference. Einstein also shows how this procedure and the postulates of relativity combine to produce the relativity of simultaneity given under SR.

 * Here are Einstein's words - disagree with them if you will:

"...we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."

 * Note his quotes around the word "time"; that means that it was not an actual time measured by actual clocks, but was merely a stipulated "time."

 * This was done prior to the second postulate, and the time of the speed of light within the second postulate is based solely on the given definition, which merely sets clocks to get c in all directions in all frames, as Einstein said.

 * In no way did - as you claim - the definition "assume the validity of the second postulate" because the former came first.

 * The second postulate could not exist sans the definition.

I don't know if this view makes any sense to you, but I doubt that you are willing to do the hard work needed to figure it out (although you seem to have a good head on your shoulders such that you are capable of doing so). SR is very non-intuitive, and requires you to give up certain ideals of Newtonian phsyics which experiment and experience have shown just do not work in the real world for objects moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.

Overall, my experience has been that this type of discussion proves nothing to either side. In the end the "anti" has to convince himself of it when he is wrong. I have convinced myself of being wrong on several issues regarding general relativity and my own attempt to modilfy it, but the context of that work is such that I cannot see anything similar happenning to me in regards to my acceptance of SR. --EMS | Talk 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Did you even look at John Wheeler's SR book Spacetime Physics to see how he presented the definition, or did you just make up your mind sans any facts?

 * If you really think that you know SR, then why not tell me the simple difference between Einstein's clocks and those of classical physics.

 * Also, tell me exactly why there has been no experiment - not even on paper - in the one-way case.

 * You simply try to go on your merry way while completely ignoring all of these important questions and issues. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Cadwgan wrote:
 * ... the time of the speed of light within the second postulate is based solely on the given definition, which merely sets clocks to get c in all directions in all frames, as Einstein said.
 * Kindly explain how it is is possible to set the clocks like that if c is not uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference.
 * On Wheeler's definition: I assume that you are refering to the second postulate.  No, I have not read that book, but if his definition is like Rindler's then the first postulate is implied in the wording and it indeed declares the uniform constancy of c on its own.  That's not quite the way Einstein intended it, but so be it.
 * That is all that I will respond to, and is more than I should. The simple truth of the matter is that if you permitted yourself to view special relativity in its own terms, the answers would be obvious.  I am sure that all of your questions have been answered on the USENET.  If you have not raised any of those issues there by now, then you should.  Just be aware that your refusing the accept the answer you get does not mean that the issue has not been dealt with.  For myself, I see no reason to argue with someone who will define my answers as wrong. --EMS | Talk 03:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"That is all I will respond to" does not tell us why no one has ever performed the unidirectional version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (i.e., no one has ever measured light's one-way speed between two clocks in any given frame).

If you do not know the answer, then you cannot understand SR.

"That is all I will respond to" does not tell us the difference between Einstein's and Newton's clocks.

If you do not know the answer, then you cannot understand SR.

I am not being flippant. I am being honest.

Let me see if you can "view relativity in its own terms":

(i) Show us how - if only on paper - we can measure light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks.

(ii) Show us the precise (math) difference between Einstein's clocks and Galileo's clocks.

This is vital because the prime difference between SR and Lorentzian physics is the manner in which Einstein's clocks are related temporally. (As Einstein said, given the clocks of classical physics, light's one-way speed varies as in his own equation w = c - v.)

You have so far refused to show the derivation of this equation, even though this single simple equation prompted the very creation of SR.

And no one has answered any of my questions in the Newsgroups. On the contrary, they studiously avoid even talking about such questions. (Indeed, you yourself saw Dirk come in from the Groups, and not say a word about my simple SR challenges.)

"Kindly explain how it is is possible to set the clocks like that if c is not uniform and isotropic in all frames of reference."

As Einstein's equation w = c - v told us, c is not "uniform and isotropic" unless Einstein's clocks are used.

Do you not know the difference between relative time and absolute time? The only way to see the difference is by looking at a pair of clocks in each of two frames, one Galilean and one Einsteinian.

But you refuse to do this. And yet you somehow blame me for not "viewing relativity in its own terms," whatever that is supposed to mean. Don't be afraid to find out the truth about SR. You have no real vested interest in the "theory," do you?

For example, look at Wheeler's book where he fully and carefully describes Einstein's "synchronization" process. Basically, all that happens is that the distant clock is PRESET by Einstein to read the baselessly prechosen value x/c, where x is the ruler-measured distance between the clocks. Naturally, once this has been done, the "result" will be c for light's one-way "speed."

But can you in all honesty call this a measured speed?

Nope, because there was no actual experiment. (As I said, the one-way experiment has yet to be performed, even on paper.)

Can you tell us why it has not been performed? Cadwgan Gedrych 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cadwgan wrote:

... the prime difference between SR and Lorentzian physics is the manner in which Einstein's clocks are related temporally.

Amazing. You ask how Einstein's and Galileo's clocks are related, and then state the answer yourself. If you want to understand relativity, then all you have to do is to accept it on its own terms. "There are none so blind as those who will not see". You know the answers to these questions already. So stop acting dogmatic, and ask how SR can be true instead of how it can't be.

I won't say more. It won't do either on us any good if I did. --EMS | Talk 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That was not amazing because it was not the answer.

 * The answer must be given by you as proof that you understand SR.

 * The answer must be in the following form:

clock 1                            clock 2 [?]--classical frame A---[?]

[?]--Einsteinian frame B-[?] clock 3                            clock 4

 * What is dogmatic about this? Cadwgan Gedrych 18:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I have nothing to prove to you. Unlike you, I am quite comfortable with SR, and see no need to tear it down.  I admit that dealing with you is tempting, since you have shown yourself to be intelligent, throughtful, and considerate here even as you have engaged in your inappropriate campaign.  But what do I get out of it if I answer?  Am I going to be helping you to see SR as those who accept it see it?  Or am I going to be getting into the standard "this can't be right" cycle that I have been through countless times on the newsgroups (and which you have no doubt been on the other side of many times yourself)? --EMS | Talk 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All physical postulates must pertain to some future physical experiment. To which future physical experiment does the "second postulate" pertain? Cadwgan Gedrych 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain
You wrote:
 * ... even though the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887, no one-way experiment has ever been performed, not even on paper using ideal rulers and clocks.

I do not see the need for a "one-way" experiment if you are willing to consider the MMX a "round-trip" experiment. After all, the MMX is meant to detect anisotropies in c, not to measure it directly (although that can be done with a variation of the MMX).

Just to review, in Newtonian physics if the speed of light is c is some base frame, then if one is in a frame which is moving with respect to the base frame at a rate of v, then the speed of light will be $$c \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$ when the light is moving perpendicular to the relative motion of the frame with respect to the base frame. At the same time if light is going in the direction of the relative veloctiy of the current frame with respect to the base frame, then the speed will be c - v. At the same time, movement of the light against the frame's movements will make the speed of light c + v. These combine to make the average speed of light for an out-and-back trip $$c (1 - v^2/c^2)$$. Using the fringes from a beam light which is split and later reconmbines after going down perpendicular paths can detect the difference between light going at $$c \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$$ and at $$c (1 - v^2/c^2)$$. The MMX did that test, and it came up empty.

My point is that even though it is a two-way test, it can none-the-less detect one-way anisotropies. Given that, why to you keep asking for an explicit one-way test? --EMS | Talk 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It is possible for physical clock slowing and/or physical rod length contractions to completely conceal any and all round-trip anisotropies, but it is - contrastingly - impossible to conceal any one-way anistropies as long as synchronous clocks are used, as Einstein pointed out with his simple equation w = c - v.

 * (For example, as John Wheeler carefully pointed out, one can easily have full round-trip nullness even without physical clock slowing by simply giving the rods an extra general contraction, where both rods get shorter in addition to the standard Lorentz shrinkage of the horizontal rod. (And of course, we could also have the vertical rod get longer, but this strains the imagination.)

 * Thus, Einstein was forced to replace synchronous clocks with his specially-designed asynchronous clocks in order to obtain his baselessly prechosen "one-way nullness."

 * As Einstein and Wheeler knew and know, even if rods shrink and clocks slow (thereby concealing any round-trip anisotropies), we can still have one-way variance because clock slowing and rod shrinkage are independent of clock synchronization.

 * You can easily see this on paper by using a pair of slowed clocks placed at the end points of a shrunken horizontal rod.

 * Basically, the physical reasons for this are as follow:

 * [a] It is impossible to measure light's one-way speed without using two clocks, and

 * [b] not even slowed clocks and a shrunken rod cannot hide the physical fact that each frame moves differently past a passing light ray.

 * As I have pointed out, no one has yet performed the one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which proves that the round-trip case and the one-way trip case differ fundamentally. Cadwgan Gedrych 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * A one-way MMX is an oxymoron to begin with, given the modus operndi on the experiment. Indeed, I cannot figure out the use of the one-way experiment given that the clocks must be synchronized to give c in that direction first.  Now I will admit that if you don't get c in the other direction (after having gotten it in the first direction) that there is a problem.  But then again, what would that mean, other than there there is an anisotropy in c to begin with?

 * Fundamentally, the issue is not the one-way value of c but whether there are any anisotropies in c. The anisotropies are much easier to detect that a direct discrepancy in c anyway.  Note that the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment, by using arms of dissimilar lengths, tested for the hiding of the aether effects due to length contraction and found none.  Also note that by the time Lorentz was done theorizing about the aether, he had created a substance that made the spacetime appear to be in perfect accord with special relativity.  In fact, as Einstien foresaw in his 1905 paper, Lorentz had created an aether that was superfluous because it could never be detected!

 * I think that you should step back and look again at the issues involved with SR and the experimentation done regarding it. The clocks are the same as Galileo's, but their spacetime is something different.  You must stop demanding that "good" clocks synchronize (except when they are at rest wrt each other), or at least try doing so in a thought experiment.  In essense, you need to let yourself see spacetime as Einstein came to see it.

 * Beyond that, if you don't care for that then so be it. Your constructive comments are welcome, and you do seem to be able to be constructive in that you are flagging real misunderstandings on the part of other editors.  Even so, your anti-relativity stand is a bother here.  It would be nice if you could at least see things as the rest of us do even in you don't want to accept it.  As-is, you are amazingly close to doing so, to the point where, as I just wrote, you are actually somewhat constructive here.  Let's just say that as long as your postings remain at least as constructive as your more recent ones, I will not invoke my threat to remove them.  Even so, it would be nice if you were more "with the program" here. --EMS | Talk 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as light's measured speed is concerned, an atomic clock has only the single physical property of intrinsic atomic vibration. Therefore, once a clock has been given a constant speed through space, its intrinsic atomic vibrational rate is set, and nothing more can happen to the clock to alter its recorded time (given an SR environment).

Similarly, as far as light's measured speed it concerned, a ruler has only the single physical property of intrinsic length, and once a ruler has been given a certain constant velocity through space, its unique physical length is set, and nothing more can be done to alter any of its recorded distance measurements (given an SR environment).

Suppose we are given that clocks physically slow and rulers physically contract as the move through space. Supposed they change according to the formula 1/sqr(1 - v2/c2), where v/c is the ratio of a clock's or ruler's speed v through space to light's speed through space c (as per Maxwell's equations).

Only if we are given these (or similarly physically distorted) rulers and clocks can light's round-trip, one-clock speed be c in all directions in all inertial frames.

However, even given slowed clocks and contracted rulers, light's one-way, two-clock speed will still vary with frame velocity according to the formula w = c2/(c - v), as long as the clocks are absolutely synchronous.

The above proves that one-way, two-clock variance must occur when absolutely synchronous clocks are used, even if clocks are slowed, and rods are contracted. It also proves that the only way to obtain SR's one-way invariance (using two same-frame clocks) is by replacing absolutely synchronous clocks with absolutely asynchronous clocks, and then setting (forcing) the latter to get "c" one-way via a definition, as did Einstein.

After noting that round-trip invariance/isotropy was given (for all practical purposes) by the Michelson-Morley experiment (even though their names were omitted), Einstein [1905] noted that the time portion of light's one-way speed must be given by definition because we have no means of absolutely synchronizing clocks. He also noted in his book that light's one-way speed would be c ± v if synchronous clocks were used.

Einstein also noted in his book that in order to get his wished-for (albeit baselessly wished-for) one-way invariance, we must simply and summarily abandon absolutely synchronous clocks. (Special Relativity, 1961 Edition, page 27, "... if we discard [the assumption of absolute time or absolutely synchronous clocks], then the conflict between the law of propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity disappears.")

Clearly, Einstein's definition of clock "synchronization" is a vital part of light's one-way speed, and clearly, light's one-way speed is the only speed about which special relativity could have postulated, given round-trip invariance via experiment.

Does the WIKI relativity article's second postulate section mention anything about a definition of "synchronization"? Does it mention that light's one-way speed would vary given absolutely synchronous clocks? Does it mention that Einstein was forced to discard synchronous clocks, and then had to force clocks via a definition to obtain one-way invariance? Does it mention the fact that even given slowed clocks and shrunken rods and round-trip invariance, light's one-way speed can still vary as long as truly or absolutely synchronous clocks are used? Cadwgan Gedrych 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You wrote:
 * However, even given slowed clocks and contracted rulers, light's one-way, two-clock speed will still vary with frame velocity according to the formula w = c2/(c - v), as long as the clocks are absolutely synchronous.
 * Kindly show me how you reach that odd conclusion, as it seems to be the crux of the issue here. --EMS | Talk 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Have you not been following the discussion? Did you not see my direct reference to Einstein's own equation w = c - v?

 * There is nothing odd about my above merely extended version of Einstein's own equation. Just as Einstein did, I used absolute synchronization, and merely added slowed clocks and contracted rods, as I stated above.

 * You can do the simple algebra (I hope).

 * Suspiscion: You are neglecting the relativity of simultaneity, meaning that you are basing this assertion on a subset of the relativitic effects instead of using the full Lorentz contractions.  In that case, all that you are proving is that SR is incompatible with absolute synchronization.  I agree.  Maybe you need to explain why that bothers you instead. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to "prove that SR is incompatible with absolute time"; that's a given if there ever was one. All I have been trying to do here since day one is to show the many inadequacies of the WIKI SR 2nd postulate section. I feel that I have done this beyond the call of duty, so I hereby "resign" from trying to clear up the pitiful WIKI version of the all-important 2nd postulate. Cadwgan Gedrych 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You have been trying to show the inadequacies of the second postulate iteslf! To the extent that you efforts are not original research they are already well-refuted and in any case fall under the WP:NPOV category of belonging to an "extremely small minority" such that they are not worthy of coverage in the SR article.

 * Be my guest with trying to impose global synchronisation on spacetime. I will admit that the relativity of simultaneity is a difficult concept to get used to, as it means that motion "tilts" time (or rather your "time axis").  All that I can say is that your efforts to refute SR fall into the category of "making Newtonian demands":  By claiming the absolute simultaneity must exist, you are only showing the relativity and Newtonian physics are incompatible.

 * In any case, I accept your "resignation". Even so, I thank you for asking some astute questions.  Let's just say that I have more respect for you than for another pro-relativity editor.  I wish you luck, but once again advise trying to see how relativity works instead of how is does not.  (You are a smart person, and my own experience with trying to change GR [which is ongoing], is that it very much helps to "know thy enemy".) --EMS | Talk 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No 2nd Postulate Needed for SR
Hi, I noticed your comments about the 2nd postulate. I wrote up a short piece about how the 2nd postulate is not really needed. You might be interested in its perspective:

Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity. Special relativity considers that observers in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is "stationary". This is actually Galileo's principle of relativity; Einstein's contribution was to explicitly include electromagnetism within this principle by replacing, in the formalism, the Galilean transformations with Lorentz transformations and to see that this led to many surprising consequences. In particular it overthrew the Newtonian concept of absolute time and required the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same for all these observers, regardless of their motion, or the motion of the source of the light, since the invariance of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

This is the strength of special relativity, that it can be derived from such a single, basic principle: the invariance of the laws of physics under a shift of inertial reference frames, known as Lorentz covariance.

--Michael C. Price talk 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.

 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cadwgan Gedrych