See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

aSK:Leave a message

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

If you would like to leave us a message, you can do so on this page without having to register.

Please use the 'Add topic' link above to open an edit box to leave your message.

If you need to link to another page, put square brackets around it, e.g. [[Main page]].

Warning: Your IP address (a number like 123.456.789.01) will be recorded in this page's history, and in some cases this can be used to identify where you are connected to the Internet.

Contents

[edit] Best wishes

Hi Philip (and others). I won't be contributing as the POV of this wiki is pretty far away from my own POV. However I hope that you succeed in becoming what Conservapedia will never be. Even if this wiki doesn't become a comprehensive Christian resource, hopefully it will be a friendly place where people can collaborate and learn. It has a good chance with PJR at the helm. All the best in your future endeavours. AndyJM.

Thanks, AndyJM.

[edit] Best Wishes

Hi Phillip, knew you from your Wikipedia days, and although we crossed swords, I always regarded you as a pretty decent bloke. I read your "I was a Conservapedia Administrator" and am sorry it didn't work out for you. So although I can't agree with your position on many issues, I'd like to wish you all the best here. Michael Johnson.

Thanks Michael. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Math, and a few other things

I was very interested in creating a good math & science educational presentation on Conservapedia, but my efforts slowly but surely ran aground. I'm excited to have this opportunity to do the same here. The title "storehouse of knowledge" strongly suggests that this is the right place to be. And I see that the first stirrings of math and science are already underway. But, a few things. No doubt there will be more later.

  • The wiki "math extensions" are really indispensable, and we don't yet have them. I know nothing about installing them. I, and others, would be eternally grateful to whoever can put them in. Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and RationalWiki all have them.
  • I want to copy stuff that I wrote, and some stuff that others wrote but released to me. (I don't have all the releases yet, but I know who I'm going after. Some of them already have accounts here, in fact.) But the wording of the regulations seems to suggest that this isn't as straightforward as it ought to be. I think the standard practice on other wikis is that you can always bring over your own material, because it's as if you wrote it fresh. And no one can complain about plagiarism, because you can't plagiarise yourself. But the regulations seem to indicate that the content committee has to pass on these on a case-by-case basis, and that approval is by no means automatic. Is that really the intended policy? Can it be relaxed? Can I help allay any fears you might have on this topic? Also, the regulations seem to imply that only "members" can do this in any case. "Member" seems to be something akin to "sysop", that is, at the very least, someone who has been entrusted with significant power. I believe that I could achieve this level of trust (for example, look at my contributions to CP—zero vandalism, and zero reverts.) But I'd prefer if bringing one's material over from CP weren't dependent on this.
  • I hope that I'm not making a wrong assumption in thinking that you want well-presented educational (middle and high-school level) articles in math and science. Everything I've seen indicates that the answer is yes, but I probably ought to ask.

Oh, and one more thing. Thank you for creating this wiki. It is an enormous relief from that other place. And I see that a lot of other people agree. I wish you the best. SamHB 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Math is not as straightforward as most other extensions, and the instructions for installation appeared to assume more knowledge that I have. I have asked the person who set up the site for me to install it, but it seems he hasn't had the time so far.
'Member' is not intended to be akin to sysop. Rather, it's a basic level of rights granted once we are satisfied that one is not a vandal or other persons with harmful intentions. Without checking your contributions on Conservapedia, I'd say that you could be granted membership once you can demonstrate that you are the same person.
The restriction on copying content from elsewhere is because we want this site to have original content, not because of legal or other issues. I believe that the restrictions are not too onerous (most requests so far have been approved).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What a great thing you are doing. How can I contriute? I have never looked into the other encyclopedias very much so am unsure of what you would be looking for. Where will you get most of your information from? May God bless you with what you are doing. Yvonne Pratt

Yvonne, welcome! To contribute, you will need to register. After that, it depends on what talents you have. If you are knowledgeable on some topics, then one good place to start would be in writing about those topics. This is a general encyclopaedia, so that could be almost anything, from history to technology to social issues to biblical themes to geographical topics (places, etc.) to nature to... If you are good at English, you could look at existing articles and see what spelling and grammar improvements you could make. It's hard for me to say much more without knowing what gifts God has given you. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to properly answer your second question. The information comes from any suitable source, whether that be books, journals, magazines, other encyclopædias, etc. But it must be rewritten for here, although we can repeat the information, we can't just copy their words and sentences. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

i have written unpublished Christian books how doi get parts of it onto the system what is the procedure Peope say i should publish them and rather than have them unpoublished on my web page i am ofering parts of them here that i think will interst people

Nevile Salvetti

salvettimn@optusnet.com.au

Nevile,
If you publish them as encyclopædia articles here, they will (most likely) be edited by others, and will no longer be solely your own work. If you are happy for them to form the basis of articles, and assuming that they fit into the stance of this encyclopædia, then there should be no problem. But if you want them to remain your own work, then perhaps you should consider another option.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Most amusing (mis)use of statistics I've ever seen

Discussion moved to user talk:Dandv.

[edit] I'd like to join, but...

Having just discovered this site, I do not know if your policies are as draconian as those of Conservapedia; knowing Philip, I assume they are not. I was a liberal administrator at Conservapedia for some time, before being blocked for trying to expose TK through IRC screenshots. Seeing as how this encyclopedia is up-front with its worldview and does not make wild, schizophrenic claims - like Andy - I would like the opportunity to, if not heavily edit for content, at least attempt to be a constructive member of the community. Considering my past history I thought it might be prudent to ask first. What do you say, am I welcome here? --Hojimachong

See here for our rules and regulations, see the block log to see how often we block (be careful to discount those that block themselves!), see here for an offer to work in good faith.
Others can comment if they disagree (or agree), but I'd say that most objections are to what I believe and what critics see as a lack of logic or open-mindedness on my part, not to an otherwise unreasonable or oppressive environment.
As long as you play fair, you will be welcome here.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] non-Biblical worldviews

I browsed the site quite a bit but am still unclear on one point. Is it the intention of aSK to include a description of the major non-Biblical worldviews on topics where it makes a difference, including (in appropriate, not excessive, detail) not just what the others believe, but also why they believe it? --Art Carlson

Yes. Although the worldview could influence our considerations on what things are relevant, the main effect will be on what things are presented as true. So depending on the popularity of the particular non-biblical worldviews, it is quite relevant to know about them (including their rationale), and they would therefore be quite appropriate to include (as is already the case, with articles about Islam and evolution, for example), as long as they were not presented as true. Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. Those are rules I can live with. Let's see if we can work together. --Art Carlson, now --Awc 07:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (which blows my cover before I even start)

[edit] To the tech..supprt

Hello I can not SIGN ON to this here service it is not impossible to create a PASSWORD EMAIL please? durak6996@mail.ru

I have sent an e-mail asking for a more detailed description of the problem. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The e-mail bounced. It said that your e-mail address was not valid. Please try sending an e-mail to Administration@AStorehouseOfKnowledge.info.

[edit] This cannot go unchallenged. I will not stand for your misrepresentation and lies.

This edit must be addressed. Firstly I disagree with Hamster, I was blocked for incivilty. Not on Philips arbitrary whim. I accept that.
Now to the heart: See here for the full debate. Philip first used Guth to support his claim (forgetting that he was quoting a magazine cover and not Guth's words. He then found 4 - 5 other quotes to support his views. Guth, Paul Davies and 2 other explanations which, when looking at the sources, came from briefs. Not scholary articles or books but online briefs. I then wrote an essay and provided 'over 30 references to support my contentions. Each one came from scholarly resources, indepth media articles, Guth's own work (citied by chapter and page number), essays by Paul Davies plus quotes from leading theologeons and even CMI itself. it is a lie to suggest I only addressed Guth when I specifically adressed to entire argument. The discussion wasn't after the Big Bang. Yes I addressed inflation but it was how it began followed by the process. You have lied and misrepresented my position Philip. I will not stand for it.

You should address the edit that followed as well. Also, you disagree with Philip and attribute that to a lie, while being comfortable simply disagreeing with Hamster without attributing any lies from Hamster. Why is that? LowKey 04:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If Hamster disagrees when presented evidence that his position is incorrect then I will accuse him of lying also. Also, it is not a matter of disagreement with Philip, what he said is obviously - in black and white - untrue.
forgetting that he was quoting a magazine cover and not Guth's words. If I was forgetting that bit of information, I would have attributed the quote to "Alan Guth", instead of "Explaining Alan Guth's view".
He then found 4 - 5 other quotes to support his views. It wasn't after; it was in the same post.
it is a lie to suggest I only addressed Guth when I specifically adressed to entire argument I didn't say that you only addressed Guth. I said that you repeatedly accused me of quoting only Guth when I had in fact quoted others. That you eventually acknowledged the others doesn't make that claim false. Here's some I found, thanks to your handy compilation of our discussions (underlining is mine):
  • Not one theory on the origin of the universe says it comes from nothing, not one. I challenge you to find me one that does.
    • I already have, and you've claimed that they mean things that they don't say.[—PJR]
      • No you haven't. Where? You haven't shown me a thing, you have given one quote from Guth...
  • Your argument consisted entirely of quotes from Guth talking about inflation theory.
  • You picked Alan Guth, talking about his inflation theory, to support this view. So, in summary, your argument is that Alan Guth's inflation theory, as he states it, holds the universe came from nothing.
The discussion wasn't after the Big Bang. I didn't say that it was.
Yes I addressed inflation but it was how it began followed by the process. Sorry, what's "it"? Inflation, the universe, or the Big Bang?
You have lied and misrepresented my position Philip. I didn't lie, and I have tried to represent your position accurately. And I believe that you have frequently misrepresented my position, including as explained in this post. I haven't accused you of lying, though.
I also note that you have not disputed my bulletted summary in my post you linked to.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Not one theory on the origin of the universe says it comes from nothing, not one. Another example would be Stephen Hawking's claim that the universe has no beginning — he suggests that quantum gravity would "smooth out" the singularity at the beginning of spacetime, so that there would be no sharp origin point; as we get closer to the beginning, time bends into space and gets more and more space-like; the "beginning" is not a "beginning", since at the "beginning" there is no time, rather time has turned into an extra spatial dimension. Don't believe it myself, but I think it would fit the bill of "a theory of the origin of the universe [that] says it comes from nothing". (On a meta-note, these discussions are so convoluted and difficult to follow, I'm not even sure who I am disagreeing with here, or why they made the point I'm disagreeing with.) Maratrean 11:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
what I meant was since Philip is the sole arbiter of what comprises incivility the block of Ace was therefore at Philips sole discretion. Show me the group of members who adjudicated the offense and I will withdraw the comment. Note also that neither Phil or lowkey is ever uncivil. 69.95.240.180 15:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
See here and here. A "group of members" is not a requirement. I note your note, and appreciate that you notice. LowKey 04:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad you agree that those that determine the rules are above them. did you run checkuser to get my ip ? thats tacky. Hamster 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agreed no such thing. I was playing a little with your note that we are never uncivil. No, I didn't run checkuser. The post was quite evidently yours, including the "what I meant was..." LowKey 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion wasn't after the Big Bang. I didn't say that it was. That's a lie, you said not a few days ago that's what Ace was doing; giving me a lesson in what supposedly happened just after something came from nothing. Which was not what I was doing.
The entire debate started with Guth, you posted your 4 quotes and I dealt with Guth first because that is what you were having trouble with first. I then followed with 34 references which were all directly dealing with the other 3 quotes you posted. The reason I said you "posted one Guth quote" is because we were dealing directly with Guth and you posted one quote to argue against my multitude of references, about Guth, in support of my position. My other references specifically addressed the other postings you made. This is not difficult to follow.
And after all my explanations, essays and references you are still asking Sorry, what's "it"?? It is very clear we are discussing what a universe from nothing means so stop playing semantic games.
I cant' see how I have misrepresented you in any fashion. 121.73.11.147 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a lie I will be interested to see if you end up apologising for this further accusation of lying.
you said not a few days ago "that's what Ace was doing; giving me a lesson in what supposedly happened just after something came from nothing". Let me try and clarify (then you can clarify where I'm wrong, if you still think I am).
Let's divide the history of the universe into three stages:
  1. The fraction of a second before the Big Bang, when I say that cosmologists say that something came from nothing; the time before inflation, before the Big Bang (given that the Big Bang is what is supposed to have happened just after the beginnning).
  2. The Big Bang, including inflation.
  3. The rest of time since; the time after the Big Bang.
So when I said that you talked about "what supposedly happened just after something came from nothing", I was referring to stage 2.
And when you said that "The discussion wasn't after the Big Bang", I presumed that you were referring to stage 3, so I replied that "I didn't say that it was". That is, I didn't claim that you were talking about stage 3.
I then followed with 34 references which were all directly dealing with the other 3 quotes you posted. From memory, none of them "directly" dealt with the other three quotes, although I'm not denying that they might have dealt with the subject matter of the three quotes.
The reason I said you "posted one Guth quote" is because we were dealing directly with Guth... It wasn't "we" who was dealing directly with Guth, but you. Further, your claim that you simply concentrated on Guth doesn't explain why you said that my "argument consisted entirely of quotes from Guth", when in fact it included quotes from others.
It is very clear we are discussing what a universe from nothing means so stop playing semantic games. If it was clear (to me), I would not have asked. This is not me playing games, this is me asking for clarification and you assuming bad faith.
I cant' see how I have misrepresented you in any fashion.
  • Claiming that I didn't realise that it was the magazine, not Guth, that I was quoting.
  • Indicating that it was only after I quoted Guth that I found further quotes.
  • Accusing me of saying that you only addressed Guth, when I was actually saying that you initially only addressed Guth.
  • Accusing me of claiming that you only discussed what happened after the Big Bang.
  • Accusing me of deliberate falsehood (i.e. lying).
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course I am assuming bad faith. I don't even have to assume it in fact. You said, after nearly a year of debate, that you hadn't read any of the material (prior to entering the discussion) and didn't think think you needed to in order to mount a defence of your position. Those were almost your exact words. That is intellectually dishonest, YOU are intellectually dishonest. You are so dishonest you couldn't even admit you were wrong about Alan Guth's AND Paul Davies positions (as listed in my references) and your two other quotes come from briefs...NOT scholarly references or books but briefs which I have since clarified many times over. So intellectually dishonest that you think using a quote from a magazine cover is a robust argument. It is all in black and white Philip. Why has not one person leapt to your defence? Why do even leading theologians and CMI disgaree with you? Is it perhaps because you are wrong? While I don't think you deliberatly lie to me or others I do think you lie to yourself. And how. 121.73.11.147 00:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course I am assuming bad faith. I don't even have to assume it in fact. You do, actually. Your argument is that you don't have to assume it happened in this case because you "know" (believe) it happened in another case. If true, that might give you grounds to assume bad faith, but you are still assuming it.
You originally wrote You said, after nearly a year of debate, that you hadn't read any of the material and didn't think think you needed too in order to mount a defence of your position. Those were almost your exact words. That is intellectually dishonest,... I know you subsequently reworded that, and I'll get to that in a moment, but note for now that what you are saying is that "mounting a defence of my position" was supposed to be done without reading particular material that you subsequently provided.
You changed that to You said, after nearly a year of debate, that you hadn't read any of the material (prior to entering the discussion) and didn't think think you needed to in order to mount a defence of your position. That change completely changes your comment. Before mounting a defence, I hadn't read any of the material you subsequently provided. In making your correction, you have destroyed the force of your argument.
You are so dishonest you couldn't even admit you were wrong about Alan Guth's AND Paul Davies positions... That's question begging. I didn't admit that because you failed to convince me. That's not dishonesty. To summarise, Davies and Guth said "A", you pointed out that they also said "BCDEF" which, you claimed, meant that "A" was not true, or at least not a fair understanding of their positions. I questioned why, if that was so, they said "A" in the first place. You dismissed "A" as rhetoric or hyperbole or similar, an explanation that I found unconvincing. To use an analogy, Fred says that he built a particular house. You point to an account where Fred explains that he bought the land, engaged an architect, hired a builder, and had the house built. Therefore, you claim, Fred didn't actually build the house. But, I claim, that doesn't explain why he said that he built the house (the explanation being, in this case, that he was still responsible for it, even though he didn't do the actual building). You dismiss his claim of building as overgeneralising or something. The point, however, is that even though the extended explanation may be entirely true, it doesn't mean that the original claim was false, just that it might need clarification. Your approach has been to say that the extended explanation makes me—who is simply quoting Guth's/Davies', etc.—wrong. I don't find that convincing
Why do even leading theologians and CMI disgaree with you? Interesting that you would cite a theologian as an authority on cosmology, and CMI doesn't disagree with me. I forget the exact reference you provided, but CMI agrees that cosmologists argue that the universe came from nothing, although they also point out that it couldn't have, and perhaps even pointed out that the cosmologists' own arguments don't support their claims.
While I don't think you deliberatly lie to me or others... Yet that is the clear inference of your claim that I have been lying. So you are now admitting that you were wrong?
You should now be able to edit your own talk page. How about we move this conversation there?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You dismissed "A" as rhetoric or hyperbole or similar, an explanation that I found unconvincing. I provided 34 references to support my explanation. Would you like some more? And I do believe you lied.
That's question begging. I didn't admit that because you failed to convince me. If you'd rather believe someone elses one line summary on a magazine cover (and your own poorly thought out and uneducated opinion) of Guth's and Davies position over their own words then you go right ahead.
And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I have destroyed the force of my argument because the fact remains you were adamant you were correct before I provided my references even though you hadn't done any reading which you admitted. You had already decided in advance you were right even though you hadn't read any material. That is poor intellectual judgement.
I provided 34 references to support my explanation. This is a meaningless, throwaway line that fails to engage the argument I was making in my post above.
And I do believe you lied. Yet you have failed to provide any substantiation of that, and you previously said that While I don't think you deliberatly lie to me or others I do think you lie to yourself.
If you'd rather believe someone elses one line summary on a magazine cover (and your own poorly thought out and uneducated opinion) of Guth's and Davies position over their own words then you go right ahead. This misrepresents my position (I'm not relying just on a "one line") and is abusive ad hominem.
And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I have destroyed the force of my argument... Then perhaps you should reread what I say above, because the rest of your comment fails to address what I said.
... because the fact remains you were adamant you were correct before I provided my references even though you hadn't done any reading which you admitted. I have already answered this, and you are wrong.
You had already decided in advance you were right even though you hadn't read any material. That is poor intellectual judgement. I already believed that I was right on the basis of what I had read. I never admitted to not having done any reading.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Those that smear creationists believe... something from nothing...

Oh dear, do you need another lesson Philip?

Philip, why so coy? Why is it you keep making the exact same error? Are creationists unable to learn?
Since you won't respond I'll have to comment instead. We had a one year long debate about this and provided nearly 40 references in support of what I was trying to tell you. You, in response, gave me 4 quotes (one of which was from the cover of a magazine). I rebutted each one and, on top of that, showed you that even your fellow religious brethren disagreed with you. Yet you keep making the same erroneous claim. Are you so stubborn that you can't say (even to yourself if not out loud) "OK, I didn't actually know that before but now that I do I won't keeping making the same error"?
Are creationists unable to learn? Rather, are you unable to understand that if you and I disagree, it's not axiomatically the case that I am wrong.
We had a one year long debate about this and provided nearly 40 references in support of what I was trying to tell you. The relevance of which I have disputed several times, and you have failed to address this other than by assertion.
[I] provided nearly 40 references in support of what I was trying to tell you. You, in response, gave me 4 quotes... It was actually the other way around. I gave you four quotes, and you subsequently gave me a list of references.
I rebutted each one... You asserted that they didn't mean their comments literally.
...and, on top of that, showed you that even your fellow religious brethren disagreed with you. You cited two (from memory) sources, one of which actually agrees with me.
Yet you keep making the same erroneous claim. Because you haven't convinced me that it's erroneous.
Are you so stubborn that you can't say (even to yourself if not out loud) "OK, I didn't actually know that before but now that I do I won't keeping making the same error"? Are you so stubborn that you can't say (even to yourself if not out loud) "Okay, I'm wrong to accuse Philip of lying, and I misrepresented him in a number of ways; we'll simply have to agree to disagree"?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] On Gases and Gravity

Again I feel compelled to edit in order to correct Philip's bizarre brand of physics and reality. I think Philip is getting confused regarding size. He sees a sun, with it's enormous gravity and sees a defuse gas cloud and can't see how one could produce the other. But here is trick. ALL matter has gravity. You, me, spiders, breadcrumbs, dust...even individual atoms. Gravity works the exact same way on atoms as it does to the planets. A helium atom in more massive than a hydrogen atom. The same way the moon is gravitationally attached to the earth is the same way a hydrogen atom would be gravitationally pulled to helium atom. If you have two hydrogen atoms (the simplest element) near enough they'll orbit each other, outside of external gravity like the earth. Then their combined gravity pulls other hydrogen atoms towards it and becomes more and more massive. It is extremely simple and I can't understand how Philip can question this most simple aspect of how physics works.

I have never disputed that all matter has gravity. I knew that. But where in that explanation is there any acknowledgement that gas expands, because (in most cases) the gravitational attraction is not strong enough to overcome the pressure to move apart? If someone knowing nothing about this was to read your explanation, what hint is there that gases expand? Absolutely none. Yet you call my "brand" of physics and reality "bizarre"! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
what hint is there that gases expand? Absolutely none. The answer is Jeans mass and the calculations thereof. The entire Jeans mass discussion is one of gravity vs kinetic energy or collapse vs expansion. I also said several times that gases in certain conditions expand , but there are limits and gravity may be stronger. I gave you a link to the equations which clearer shows the expansion forces Hamster 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just write a Jeans mass article with everything in it, instead of going around in circles? (You can take WP:Jeans length or WP:Jeans instability as a starting point.) —Awc 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
sounds like a plan - I will do a short thing and see where to go from there. 67.72.98.45 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Can I add a point here? The universe is, on average, very cold. This means that hydrogen atoms floating about in space won't have nearly as much energy as they do when we see them on earth, so they'll be less likely to translate outside of each other's gravitational pull ("expand").
Is that right?--CPalmer 17:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I think not. Almost all the matter has fallen into various clumps and gravitational wells and gotten heated in the process. We're talking millions of degrees here. The black-body radiation out there is, in contrast, less than 3 K. That's "very cold" indeed. —Awc 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The answer is Jeans mass and the calculations thereof. And the question was...? It was where in that explanation is there any acknowledgement that gas expands, ... If someone knowing nothing about this was to read your explanation, what hint is there that gases expand? (bolding added). My point, which somehow you failed to fathom (unless you are being deliberately misleading), is that there was no mention in the post I was replying to. So your "answer" is to cite "Jeans mass" which the post did not mention. So if the "answer" is in something that he didn't mention, you've just supported my point that he has failed to mention it!
Is that right? The principle is right, but the problem is that the universe (under the Big Bang scenario) started off very hot. But then stars aren't claimed to form until after some cooling. So one way of putting the question is whether it had cooled enough for the clouds to collapse by the time that the first stars are supposed to have formed. The link that Hamster said he gave me does indeed have the forces, but the problem is in knowing what temperature to plug in at the time that the stars were supposed to have formed, and that's something we've not been able to determine.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we must keep our conversations straight on this wiki. And inflationary theory never predicts that the temperature was any where between 3 K and 1032 K in 14 billion years. I can't think of a temperature to use. Sterile 02:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not a good argument (although it does have its place). The problem is not with "thinking" of a temperature to use, but in knowing the right temperature to use. If I use too high a temperature and show that stars could not have formed, then I'll be dismissed as using the wrong temperature. Why should I waste my time doing that? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the page I refered you to was about calculating the mass required to collapse at a specified temperature. Half a dozen google entries on big bang theory and the age of reionization specifed 3000K but I believe that was for the previous stage. I did tell you that using 3000, 1000 or 212 would all give an answer but the masses would be different. (212k is about 0 degrees so anything in space is likely warner than that.
this entire discussion was about do gases expand or can gravity result in a collapse for star formation. It should not be neccessary to mention that in every post. Your suggestion that gases in a flask expand , and I replied you needed a bigger flask. The refered article on jeans mass makes it very clear that its about gravity vs kinetic energy or collapse v expansion. Hamster 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
to show stars could not have formed by the collapse of a gas cloud would require showing that for a jeans mass of hydrogen gass could not have existed anywhere in the universe. Hamster 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
heres some figures 13.7 billion years (now) Temperature: 2.726 Kelvin 400 million years - Reionization: first stars heat and ionize hydrogen gas.Temperature: roughly 30 Kelvin. 380 thousand years after the Big Bang - Recombination: hydrogen gas cools down to form molecules. Temperature: 3000 Kelvin. So between 3000 and 30 K would do but closer to 3000. Hamster 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since we are talking about the first stars, I should think we would want to use the 30 K figure. We will also need a figure for the density. Together, they allow a calculation of the Jeans mass at that time in the life of the universe. That figure should be close to the presumed mass of the first stars, which is many solar masses, but cannot be arbitrarily high. After all, we're trying to make stars, not black holes. Some of these numbers can be calculated by taking numbers from different epochs and scaling them according to the laws governing the expansion and cooling of the universe. There may be some additional effects I haven't worked through concerning the time scale of Big Bang expansion vs. the time scale of Jeans collapse. —Awc 07:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If I use too high a temperature and show that stars could not have formed, then I'll be dismissed as using the wrong temperature. Why should I waste my time doing that? You could try a range, and see what sorts of answers you can get. I guess I don't find the attitude of "I might be wrong, so why bother" as productive to any discussion or any pursuit of knowledge. Sterile 10:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Genetic_information#off topic discussion points, the other place that this discussion doesn't belong (How about moving it to Talk:Jeans mass?), I already called Philip out for using bad numbers. He acknowledged this—more or less—and said he's written to Sarfati to get a response. If Sarfati hadn't been so sloppy, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Although it sometimes sounds like we are fighting over the physical effects, it's really just a quantitative question of whether the first stars should have been 100 or 100,000 solar masses heavy. —Awc 12:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
we did touch briefly(I think it was Martin) that a very large mass of gas nay collapse and multiple stars may form due to uneven distribution within tha mass, so it apparently is not always one mass = one star. Hamster 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Collapse will occur simultaneously on every scale above the Jeans length. Interestingly, all length scales collapse on the same time scale. Sarfati's argument in http://creation.com/nebular-hypothesis was that "at the time the first stars were formed, the temperature was so high that the required Jeans Mass would be about 100,000 suns ... i.e. no cloud less massive than this could have collapsed into a star, thus no star could have formed this way." So the issue is not the largest scales, those that result in clusters and galaxies, but the smallest scales, those that result in stars, even if very heavy ones. These stars will have something close to the Jeans mass for the conditions at the time of their formation. —Awc 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of effects that I'm not qualified to sort out, like the cooling due to the formation of H2 and the gravitational effects of dark matter that can't radiate away its energy. Collapse produces gravitational heating of the gas, but that can promote H2 formation which promotes radiative cooling... I've read some stuff about whether these factors will promote fragmentation of a cloud into smaller regions, producing multiple stars, or whether they will lead to the formation of massive single stars. As far as I understand it, it's sensitive to initial conditions; cooler gas with more heavy elements is more likely to form multiple stars than hot hydrogen alone, etc. Certainly if the initial gas is not a sphere of uniform distribution, some areas will collapse unevenly, yes?--Martin Arrowsmith 20:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I would expect that in an uneven ditribution of a gas , that the vector of the gravitational attraction would be slightly toward the nearer denser region rather than the center of mass of the cloud. That would mean a denser region would get denser while falling toward the center of mass. That would seem in a large cloud to mean multiple stars, however you then have to account for the movement of those stars which might be dealt with by a rotation of the cloud as it collapses. Way beyond my maths though :( I agree with your reasoning completely. 67.72.98.45 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

this entire discussion was about do gases expand or can gravity result in a collapse for star formation. No, it's been about which of those two dominate, and, apart from me, the fact that gases normally expand—even in the presence of gravity—has hardly been mentioned. It's as though that simply doesn't happen.

It should not be neccessary to mention that in every post. It should be necessary to acknowledge that the normal situation is that that gases expand even in the presence of gravity, and then try and show why the secular claims of an exception to this hold up, instead of ignoring the expansion and keep repeating that gravity attracts.

to show stars could not have formed by the collapse of a gas cloud would require showing that for a jeans mass of hydrogen gass could not have existed anywhere in the universe. Why is the onus on me to show that it could not have existed? Why is not the onus for you to show that it did exist?

I guess I don't find the attitude of "I might be wrong, so why bother" as productive to any discussion or any pursuit of knowledge. And I don't find it productive to discussion to make a claim and then expect me to prove it wrong rather than you prove it right.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss

No one in this discussion has ever called into question the fact that gases sometimes expand. Hamster specifically said at the beginning of this section, that gases in certain conditions expand. The only one who ever said anything close to denying that gases sometimes expand and sometimes contract was you in Talk:Genetic_information#off_topic_discussion_points: gases expand, they don't contract. If you want someone to acknowledge that gases normally expand, you will first have to define what you mean by "normal", in the context of star formation. —Awc 14:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No one in this discussion has ever called into question the fact that gases sometimes expand. Straw-man! I never claimed that they did.
Sure you did: apart from me, the fact that gases normally expand—even in the presence of gravity—has hardly been mentioned. It's as though that simply doesn't happen. —Awc 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want someone to acknowledge that gases normally expand, you will first have to define what you mean by "normal", in the context of star formation. Why "in the context of star formation"? That's begging the question. The starting point is what normally happens, and from there we can see if a particular circumstance is an exception. The point is that they weren't acknowledging what normally happens. If you really want me to define "normal", it's what applies in the absence of a counteracting force.
Suppose I said that a ceiling was wet because water had flowed up the (non-porous) walls and settled on the ceiling. You disagreed, pointing out that water "normally" flows downhill, not up ("normally", because, of course, capillary action can cause it to flow upwards). Would I really be doing your argument justice by responding that "water does flow downhill in certain conditions", expecting you to define "normal", and confining the question to the context of water being found on ceilings?
OK. Gases normally contract under the force of gravity. Unless there is a counteracting force. Like the internal pressure. —Awc 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure you did: You are subtly switching arguments. I said that other here had been acting as though they never expand, by hardly mentioning that they do. Your response was that nobody had "ever called into question the fact that gases sometimes expand". That's not quite the same thing, as it implies that nobody had ever actually disagreed that they expand. I called that a straw-man.
OK. Gases normally contract under the force of gravity. Unless there is a counteracting force. Like the internal pressure. First, that's just being silly. Like me saying that water normally flows uphill, except when gravity pulls it downhill. Second, it's wrong, as in humanity's experience, even under the force of gravity, gases normally expand. That is, all our observations showing that gases expand have been made in the presence of gravity. I can go as far as saying that we have never observed gases contracting simply because of the presence of a gravitational field.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. We agree (I think) that a free cloud of gas smaller than the Jean's mass will expand, whereas a larger cloud will contract under gravity. Are we through here? —Awc 12:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. Do you realise that many people[1] (including me) consider a comment like that to be an insult, equivalent to "I don't care what you think"?
Are we through here? Are you conceding that the point that gases normally expand is correct?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I would not use the word "normal" in that way. You can use it any way you want, as long as you make it clear how you are using it. In this case, if your idea of "normal" is some subset of "conditions where the mass is below the Jean's mass", then in that sense, gases "normally" expand. —Awc 12:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Normal

what constitutes normal ? you have a specific set of conditions on Earths surface where some gasses exhibit expansion for small masses at specific concentration ranges etc which is documented as Boyles law. The majority of gasses in the universe seemed to be in large masses which exhibited gravitational collapse and formed stars. There are a lot more stars visible than planetary surface on earth. Astronomers can see now areas showing collapse and star formation in those areas. Jeans mass article says this all in plain english. Ghost of Hamster Present

what constitutes normal ? I have already explained: it's what applies in the absence of a counteracting force.
As in: "Objects on the surface of a spinning body (like the Earth) are normally flung off into space." —Awc 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
you have a specific set of conditions on Earths surface where some gasses exhibit expansion for small masses at specific concentration ranges etc which is documented as Boyles law. Obfuscation. As I've already said, gases expand in the absence of a counteracting force.
The majority of gasses in the universe seemed to be in large masses which exhibited gravitational collapse and formed stars. That's begging the question. It assumes the evolutionary history of the stars in order to argue for the evolutionary history of stars.
Astronomers can see now areas showing collapse and star formation in those areas. Do they collapse over timescales of a few hundred years? That is, has we actually seen gases collapse and form stars? No. Your claimed observation is actually a deduction that is based on the idea that you are wanting to show. In other words, more circular reasoning.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Basic English version

Have you considered doing a Basic English version of aSK? Wikipedia has one, and it has been very successful in reaching a worldwide audience, including those whose English proficiency may preclude them from full participation in the English-language version of Wikipedia. I'd like to see aSK reaching out to this potential audience of hundreds of millions. So why not offer a BEaSK? Consider that if you can tap into the enormous pool reachable by this means, you may just make it possible for aSK to take off. If this is infeasible, perhaps aSK could limit itself to BE? I know that millions of adherents to the Biblical worldview are just not ready for standard English, but would readily embrace a BE wiki.

How basic is Basic English? It is already a requirement that our articles are understandable at a high-school level as far as possible, although I must admit I think some articles which could meet this fail to do so. I don't believe that we are up to creating a separate version of the site. Would you like to register and help improve the understanding of our articles, or at least point out where you think they could be improved? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Basic English as defined on Simple English Wikipedia is English that people who are learning English, children, people with special needs, or other such groups can understand. I would be up for maintaining a BEaSK, as I already maintain a Basic English wiki, but I suppose it would be infeasible.--Colonel Sanders 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Coming from Conservapedia

I am user KingHanksley on Conservapedia - may join here, just recently learned about the site. Seems a lot more like what Conservapedia claims to be - conservative, Christian point of view, with the goal being to provide an understanding of the world from that viewpoint. Conservapedia is more of a sphere campaign, with an insane suppression of discussion even from a Christian, conservative viewpoint. Taking issue with editor behavior, tone, even points of fact, gets people banned. My question is - have you tried to get Conservapedia to recognize the existence of this website? Have they censored it? I think your treatment of Conservapedia is fair here, wondering why it's not recriprocated. Anyway, thrilled to discover this website.

Conservapedia won't have any treatment on other sites like this; it's not in their agenda to do so, otherwise they might attract other attention to alternative sites. There was an article on aSK at one time, if I'm not mistaken, but it's long gone. It is obviously not the best place to edit if you want civility, and to well...be treated as a person rather than liberal pinko commie scum. Let's be frank... just about anything can get you banned on Conservapedia. I hope you decide to join aSK and I'm sure you will make a great addition to the (small) group here.--Colonel Sanders 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Colonel, I'm signed up now and glad to get to work KingHanksley 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested articles

may i suggest the following as good topics for articles: Rob Bell (especially after the controversy over Love Wins); Mark Driscoll; Brian McLaren; Emergent/Emerging Church. [comment by a visitor, 8 February 2012]

Yes, I agree that they would be good topics for articles. I hope someone writes them. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Prothero article

In the last paragraph you state, "Citing Jason Rosenhouse, ... ."

However, I believe was citing Matt Taibbi:

Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement (2009), describes going undercover in an evangelical church for many months. He found that creationists live in a very cloistered cultish subculture, where they read only what their church elders tell them to read, attend many church meetings and intensive weekend retreats to receive constant reinforcement, and avoid listening to or reading any outside sources that might challenge their worldview.

davidk

Thanks for pointing that out, davidk. I'll amend the article. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Link

From:Paddy Phillips e-mail: paddy@ppwritingservices.co.uk

FAO Website Owner,

I am working on behalf of ADVFN. We have been monitoring the backlinks pointing to the ADVFN site and we wanted to check if we can change the anchor text of the link from your page (http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Pond_scum).

We would really appreciate the link text being changed to Share price for the link which you have on your site, details below. (an anchor text is ‘click here’ for example.)

Please can you confirm this is acceptable to you?

Kind regards,

Paddy SEO Copywriter UK

Link detail – Change anchor text ([4]) to – Share price

Thanks for asking rather than just changing, but no, this is not something I would agree to. The context of the link has nothing to do with the purpose of the linked site (it's about a user comment on the linked page) and changing the anchor text as you suggest would serve to confuse readers of our article regarding the point of the link. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox