User talk:Tsumetai

From Conservapedia

Archive 1

Contents 1 CreationWiki 2 Revert war over maintenance 3 Physics 4 Dawkins 5 Darn that pesky Colin 6 Thanks for the blocks 7 Thanks for the unlock! 8 square root 9 Proposed Block Policy 10 Sysop Pledge 11 Blocked users.... 12 Regarding Extraterrestrial life 13 Socks 14 Sysop status 15 Your template(s)

CreationWiki

And why is CreationWiki "notoriously unreliable"? Just because it doesn't allow evolutionists to make major edits? And why did those articles not address any of your points? If you mean because they don't address nuclear decay, I gave you a link to that one. But tell me, why should your evolutionist sites such as Talk.Origins be any more reliable than CreationWiki? And why shouldn't I pick a site that supports my beliefs? You pick Talkorigins; I pick AiG, CreationWiki, and various others. Ratso 17:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki is "notoriously unreliable" because much of the material there is horribly wrong. The only article you linked relevant to nuclear decay didn't address any of the theoretical or observational support for constant decay rates. Nor was it relevant to the actual point I was making, which was that YECs are critical of uniforitarian assumptions, and yet are often perfectly happy to invoke hyper-uniformitarian assumptions when it suits them.

I don't recall actually mentioning TalkOrigins. What I've seen of it is mostly sound, though. At the very least, they don't require their contributors to sign a statement of faith asserting that evolution must be true regardless of the evidence.

Picking a site which supports your beliefs just because it supports your beliefs isn't the way to get to the truth. It's the way to lock yourself into your beliefs whether they're true or not. Tsumetai 18:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

And pray tell me, how is that article you linked me to "horribly wrong"? And how does that make the entire website "horribly wrong"? That's your opinion; not fact. How do you know everything at Talk.Origins is sound? And why can't what CreationWiki posts be sound? And where did you get the idea that YEC's are "perfectly happy to invoke hyper-uniformitarian assumptions when is suits them"? They certainly don't. In fact, uniformitarians are actually more than happy to accept catastrophism whenever it supports their theory. But, that's beside the point of YECs. I have never heard a YEC invoke any "hyper-uniformitarian" views. This is straw man. The article I linked you to was specifically talking about helium diffusion, but how doesn't it not address any theoretical or observational support for constant decay rates? Ratso 19:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

And while CW may require its contributors to be YEC, that doesn't undermine their scientific credentials. For instance, check this link on Chris Ashcraft]. He has good credentials. Ratso 19:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It's now past 1AM here, so I'll make this quick and post a more comprehensive response later.

Take a look at the very last equation in the article I linked to. Suppose it's correct; what happens if I take an apple and drop it? It starts at rest and accelerated downwards, gaining kinetic energy. According to that equation, as the apple approaches the Earth, it also gains potential energy. So where did that energy come from?

In fact, they've simply got the sign wrong. Gravitational potential energy is negative, and so what actually happens when you drop an object is that it gains kinetic energy at the expense of potential.

In attempting to prove that conservation of energy is a problem for conventional cosmology, the author ends up rejecting conservation of energy altogether. This is high school physics; getting it wrong at that level is simply unacceptable. Tsumetai 20:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, I'm not pretending to be an expert, but you still haven't proven that the article is totally wrong. The fact that the apple gains energy doesn't mean at all that it just came from nowhere; the apple already had the energy, and this was released when it started falling. I'll post more later Ratso 20:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

And how do you know that gravitational potential energy is negative? How do you know it isn't positive? Ratso 21:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, let's start from the top. The first equation they give, E = fd, is actually the work done against a constant, conservative force. Work done is equal to the negative of the potential energy change, so they've got it precisely backwards.

Note that gravity is not a constant force, but varies with distance, and so one has to switch to an integral form.

Any massive body in a force field has an associated potential energy. If the force on that body acts to increase the kinetic energy of the body, that energy is coming from the potential energy of the body in question. Conversely, if we move the body against the force, we supply energy to increase its potential energy.

So in the case of gravity, when I pick up an apple and raise it from ground level, I'm acting against gravity, which is pulling it down. In doing so, I do work on the apple to supply it with potential energy. When I let go, the gravitational field does work on the apple, and potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. The work done by the gravitational field in moving the apple is equal and opposite to the change in potential energy, and so conservation of energy is satisfied.

Now you can see why the article is wrong. Because they conflate potential energy with work, they choose the wrong sign for their potential energy equation. They conclude that gravitational potential energy is positive, which leads to violation of conservation; were they correct, the dropped apple would gain both kinetic and potential energy, instead of exchanging one for the other.

As I said, this is high school physics; I could have corrected it when I was twelve. The apparent lack of anyone competent in basic physics seriously undermines the credibility of CreationWiki. Tsumetai 11:34, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I could change that, having had basic physics, I understand what you're saying, but perhaps you misread. I'll check it again; but I don't think that's what Mr. Ashcraft was trying to say. Ratso 20:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Although, much of the signs are beyond me; I haven't gotten that in depth yet, and won't till twelfth grade. It's rather difficult to understand at this point, but later I will evaluate it and see if your accusations are valid. Ratso 20:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Revert war over maintenance

(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:

• TKarchive1 -> User talk:TerryK/TKarchive1 -> User talk:TK/TKarchive1

I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.

So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.

All replies should be left at User_talk:Sid_3050#Double_Redirect_Poll for easier evaluation of the results. --Sid 3050 09:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Physics

Thanks, could you go over to the classroom and tackle that little question? And feel free to take on any others in your field. Thanks!--PalMD^talk 09:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Dawkins

You wrote:

Is there something particularly notable about Hammond's opinion? Why are we referencing him, in particular?

My reply:

This project has a pronounced anti-evolutionist slant. It is possible for an encyclopedia to be accurate and give space for opposing views, but still draw conclusions. This site opposes the "evolution without God" POV (which 11 to 15 percent of Americans support, and which Wikipedia has apparently 'enshrined' as "fact"). It prefers either guided evolution or Young Earth creationism.

As the students (and recent volunteers) gradually develop articles, they will naturally include any information which refutes or critiques the godless POV.

You are a good writer, and I hope you will follow me around the site as I try to balance the 85% with the 15%, if you know what I mean. I'm particularly interested in:

1. What precisely does the Theory of Evolution state?
2. In what way can this theory be compared with real-world observations?
   • Which scientists have concluded that the theory is consistent with the facts? (And why?)
   • Which scientists have concluded that the theory is contradicted by the facts? (And why?)

As you may have noticed, I have gotten (tentative) permission to develop an origins debate article. Please help me by making gradual, small additions to it - with good references - always bearing in mind: How can I phrase this so that no other sysop would feel an urge to delete my latest addition? --Ed Poor 07:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, that's all well and good, but it doesn't explain why Hammond's criticism of Dawkins is in any way notable. Tsumetai 05:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Darn that pesky Colin

WHAT?!? HE'S A SYSOP? ARGHH! :-P ColinR^talk 08:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the blocks

Thanks for the prompt blocks of the obscene new user tonight. Good grief!--Aschlafly 22:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the unlock!

Hey there! Thanks for the fast reaction to my unlock request, I appreciate it :) --Sid 3050 05:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

square root

Thanks for the "t"! Now the "math" works, too bad it's so ugly on the page. Human 16:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Blocked users....

They have been blocked, and part of that punishment is their pages are locked. They are breeding grounds for socks and vandals. Kindly always check, Tsumetai, before undoing another Sysop's actions, per Andy's request, okay? --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you referring to anything in particular? As far as I can recall, I've only ever unlocked a user's pages after they've been unblocked. Tsumetai 04:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, Horace. Sysop's cannot undo the blocks of another. Hoji did it. I beleive he has been reblocked, and Andy notified, or Andy reblocked him, I am not sure. Since nothing appears on Conservative's page, or Hoji's. One should take care not to involve themself with these kind of "iffy" deals, without checking with Andy. Just friendly advice. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't unprotect Horace's user or talk page. Tsumetai 06:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see. I reviewed my protection log; you're thinking of User:Sid_3050. If you check his block log, you'll see that he was unblocked by Andy after private communication between the two. It was after this that I unlocked his pages. He was later blocked again by Karajou. Tsumetai 06:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

• Sorry, but was working on a couple of them, and obviously was confused, as to the timing. Please forgive me for screwing this up. --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

No problem :) Tsumetai 08:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Extraterrestrial life

You said, in reply to my warning to Nematocyte:

Regardless of who is correct in any given content dispute, making an abuse report without first attempting to discuss the issue on the article's talk page is premature. A threat to do so is unfair and discourages cooperation, especially when coming from a sysop. I know it's never pleasant to see one's work altered in a way one considers unacceptable, but I'd urge you to engage with Nematocyte on the talk page before taking any further action. Even if it turns out just the same in the end, I believe it's still worth making the effort. Tsumetai 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai, if you are accusing me of abuse-of-power, then you are premature, not I. I invite you to examine the page and eection Talk:Extraterrestrial life#The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life. You will find that I told him once to leave my citations alone, and he refused. It was as if he did not read one single thing I published to that page, but was determined to tell me what the Bible says. And if you doubt that I know what the Bible says, then I invite you to peruse Special:Newpages and Special:Contributions/TerryH for my recent record.

In addition to the above, I was not filing an abuse report right away. That was my personal warning to him that an abuse report would result if he pulled that stunt again.

The sysop who did file an abuse listing on him was Ed Poor. He might have taken this upon himself, or else gotten my username or my case mixed up with someone else's.

Part of being a sysop is getting all the facts before you accuse a colleague of abuse-of-power.

And another part is to remember the full context of the dispute: namely User:Aschlafly's new article titled Exotheology.--TerryH^Talk 12:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Socks

Thanks for your blocking of socks. Are they coming from the same one or few IP addresses?--Aschlafly 16:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Sadly, no. Sometimes IPs are shared between two or three accounts, but there are a large number of different IPs overall. I don't think he's going to run out anytime soon... --Tsumetai 05:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Especially if using dialup. --^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

And there's always proxies. --Sulgran 05:22, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes! The proxies! Thanks for reminding me, I need to pass on to the Webmaster a handy too I have for rooting those out! --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop status

I have removed Sysop status from your account due to inactivity. If and when you return and become active, then that decision can be reconsidered.

Thanks for your efforts in the past at Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 16:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Your template(s)