Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Index of Forbidden Books

2007-03-15T18:17:13Z

PaulB: extended. added examples

The '''Index of Forbidden Books''' ([[Latin]]: ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum'') was a list of books established by the [[Council of Trent]] (1545-1563 AD) in order to guard Catholics against publications deemed unsuitable (for example, having content that was considered [[heretic]]al or immoral). Catholics were not allowed to read these books.

Since [[1966]], under [[Pope Paul VI]], the list no longer has force of [[canon law|law]], although the ''moral'' authority of the list was reaffirmed by the [[Vatican]]. The last published list dates from [[1948]].

Notable writers whose works appeared on this Index include [[Francis Bacon]], [[John Calvin]], [[Rene Descartes|René Descartes]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Voltaire]].<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.html Modern history sourcebook], Fordham University</ref>

<references/>

Penicillin (anti-biotic)

2007-03-15T12:50:25Z

PaulB: some small edits

Penicillin is an [[antibiotic]] acid that kills many types of bacteria. Credit for its discovery was given to [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[Alexander Fleming]], though many others have previously noted anti-bacterial effects of Penicillium molds. Its discovery was considered one of the greatest breakthroughs of the 20th century in the field of [[medicine]].

Penicillin is grown from molds and has the general formula of C9H11N2O4SR , where "R" represents a chemical group that is different for different types of penicillin. Its diagram is as follows:

[[Image:penicillin.jpg|300px]]

Antibiotic

2007-03-15T12:43:55Z

PaulB: corrected spelling

A [[chemical]] that kills or reduces the reproduction rates of organisms.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> Such chemicals may be secreted by living organisms (such as [[penicillin]], which is produced by certain molds) or they may be artificially synthesized. Antibiotics gradually lose effectiveness when used by an individual, as the strain of antibiotics infecting the individual evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic.<ref>http://www.chemheritage.org/educationalservices/pharm/antibiot/readings/evolve.htm</ref>. This has produced various strains of bacteria that lead to infections that cannot be treated with the more common antibiotics. An example is the MRSA strain of [[Staphylococcus Aureus]], that is resistant to all [[penicillin]]-type antibiotics.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Force

2007-03-15T11:45:27Z

PaulB:

Force is defined as rate of change of [[momentum]] of a body . F = dp/dt. For non-[[Theory of Relativity|relativistic]] speeds, the momentum is given by ''p = m v'', giving ''F = m a''.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref> In these expressions, ''F'' stands for the total vector sum of all forces, ''m'' for the mass of the object, ''a'' for its [[acceleration]] expressed as a vector, ''p'' stands for momentum vector and ''v'' for velocity vector. The expression ''F = m a'' is Newton's Second Law, which was stated first by Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

When the velocity of the object approaches the speed of light, these expressions need to be modified to account for so-called "relativistic effects". Newtonian mechanics is then no longer a good approximation, and one should use the description given by Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]].

There are four known types of forces occurring in nature<ref>Lewis H. Ryder, ''Quantum Field Theory'', 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), 1996</ref>:

;[[Electromagnetism|Electromagnetic]] force
;[[Gravitation]]al force
;Strong force
:this is the force that keeps [[atom]]ic [[nucleus|nuclei]] together.
;Weak force
:this force is (amongst other things) involved in ''beta decay'', in which a [[neutron]] in an atomic nucleus is changed to a [[proton]], emitting an [[electron]] and a [[neutrino]].

It should be noted that the latter two forces have an extremely short range (on the order of femtometers), and that a classical (Newtonian or relativistic) description of these forces is not possible. They can only be desribed using [[quantum field theory]], a relativistic version of [[quantum mechanics]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Avogadro's number

2007-03-14T18:43:55Z

PaulB:

Avogadro's number represents the number of [[atom]]s or [[molecule]]s in one [[mole]] of a given substance. It is approximately equal to <math>6.02(10^{23})</math>. It is defined as the number of [[carbon]]-12 [[atom]]s in 12 [[kilogram|gram]] of carbon.

Earth

2007-03-14T18:12:01Z

PaulB: restored image

[[image:Earthandmoon2.jpg|right|300px]]

==Earth Information==

The Earth orbits at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun in an almost circular orbit. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life (just as Venus is) while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life would be impossible.

The Earth is approximately 8000 miles (13000 km) in diameter, so its circumference is approximately 8000·π = about 25,000 miles (40,000 km). Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water:" most of the Earth's surface, about 70%, is covered by water. In fact, the Pacific and Indian oceans alone cover about half of the Earth.

Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites. In addition, most scientists also believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. Indeed, astronomers have detected dust lanes around other stars that indicate planet formation is a common and ongoing process.

==Christianity and the Earth==

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not a priori biased in favor of creationism. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Evolutionists, claim that scientific evidence, obtained through the [[scientific method]], suggests otherwise, dating the earth at beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> In addition, many human societies predate the alleged creation of the world at 4000 B.C.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Scientists, however, usually invoke some form of anthropic principle<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref> to interpret such apparent coincidences.

==References==
<references/>

Thermodynamics

2007-03-14T17:08:17Z

PaulB: /* Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics */

Thermodynamics is the study of the effects of work, heat, and energy on a system. Thermodynamics is only concerned with so-called ''macroscopic'' observations, which are observations on large numbers of particles.<ref>http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo.html</ref>.

==Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics==

For systems consisting of many particles (such as a [[gas]] consisting of many [[molecule]]s), it is possible to describe and predict the properties of the system accurately, even though it is virtually impossible to know what individual particles do. In essence, because of the large number of particles, one can apply [[statistics]] to learn about the "average" behavior of the system. The branch of [[physics]] known as [[statistical mechanics]] does just this.

"Classical" thermodynamics, on the other hand, predates this field, and makes ''no'' explicit reference to the constituent particles of a system. It consists of a number of "empirical" laws, which are derived purely from observations on thermodynamical systems, such as vessels of gas, or [[steam engine]]s. Well-known "laws" of thermodynamics are<ref>Mark W. Zemansky, ''Heat and Thermodynamics'', McGraw-Hill, New York, 1957</ref>

;[[The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics]]
:allows us to define the concept of [[temperature]], by stating that "''Two systems in thermal [[equilibrium]] with a third one are in thermal equilibrium with each other''". This law is called "zeroth" because it was only formulated after the three others, but is actually more fundamental, and hence deserves a lower number.
;[[The First Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states that [[energy]] is conserved and that [[heat]] is a form of energy.
;The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states (in one of its various formulations) that [[entropy]] in an isolated system cannot decrease, and that ''irreversible processes'' can only make it increase.<ref>Gregory H. Wannier, ''Statistical Physics'', John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966</ref>. An equivalent formulation states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cooler body to a hotter body.
;[[The Third Law of Thermodynamics]]
:also known as ''Nernst's Law'', states that it is not possible to bring any system to the [[absolute zero]] of temperature in a finite number of operations.

These laws tell us to what constraints ''any'' system is subject. For example, it allows us to calculate the maximum possible efficiency of an [[engine]] once we know the temperature at which it operates.

The particular properties of a specific system cannot be calculated from these laws alone. More information is required: so-called ''thermodynamic equations of state'' tell us how a particular system will behave under thermodynamic processes. A simple example of such an equation is the [[Ideal Gas Law]] that applies to dilute gases.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Antibiotic

2007-03-14T17:03:21Z

PaulB:

A [[chemical]] that kills or reduces the reproduction rates of organisms.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> Such chemicals may be secreted by living organisms (such as [[penicillin]], which is produced by certain moulds) or they may be artificially sythesized. Antibiotics gradually lose effectiveness when used by an individual, as the strain of antibiotics infecting the individual evolves to become resistant to the antibiotic.<ref>http://www.chemheritage.org/educationalservices/pharm/antibiot/readings/evolve.htm</ref>. This has led to various strains of bacteria that lead to infections that cannot be treated with the more common antibiotics. An example is the MRSA strain of [[Staphylococcus Aureus]], that is resistant to all [[penicillin]]-type antibiotics.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Penicillin (anti-biotic)

2007-03-14T16:57:37Z

PaulB:

Penicillin is an [[antibiotic]] acid that kills bacteria. Its discovery by the [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[Alexander Fleming]] was one of the greatest breakthroughs of 20th century [[medicine]].

Penicillin is grown from molds and has the general formula of C9H11N2O4SR , where "R" represents a chemical group that is different for different types of penicillin. Its diagram is as follows:

[[Image:penicillin.jpg|300px]]

Electrolysis

2007-03-14T16:42:55Z

PaulB:

Using electricity to break a [[molecule]] down into its constituent [[element]]s.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. An example is the electrolysis of [[water]] into [[oxygen]] and [[hydrogen]] by an electric current flowing through the water.

==References==
<references/>

Virus

2007-03-14T16:36:35Z

PaulB:

A '''virus''' is a non-[[cell]]ular infectious agent that has two characteristics: It has genetic material (either [[DNA]] or [[RNA]]) inside a protective [[protein]] coat, and it cannot reproduce itself.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> To reproduce itself, it needs to infect a cell. The genetic material is inserted into the cell, and the reproductive machinery of that cell is then effectively "hijacked": the cell starts to produce components of new virus particles. These components spontaneously self-assemble and the new virus particles can then infect other cells, where the same process happens.

Examples of viruses include the [[influenza]] virus, the common cold, [[smallpox]] and [[polio]].

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Conservapedia:Copying

2007-03-14T14:37:36Z

PaulB: /* Copied from a website that uses a "free license" like GFDL or Creative Commons */

Use this page to note of articles that appear to have been copied from other sources, or that appear to have made use of large amounts (more than a paragraph) from other sources.

Because Conservapedia's policies on copying are not yet clear, and are not obvious to users, '''most''' of these entries will have been made in good faith by users who are trying to help Conservapedia.

If you can tell, put the material under the proper heading.

==Do not know which heading to put it under==
*[[Siberian tiger]], copied from more than one source, including:
::PBS (no explicit copyright notice), http://www.pbs.org/kratts/world/eurasia/tiger/index.html
::Wikipedia, GFDL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_Tiger

==Copied from a website that posts an explicit copyright notice==

==Copied from a website that does not have any conspicuous copyright or licensing notice==

==Copied from a website that uses a "free license" like GFDL or Creative Commons==
*[[Harold Glasser]], from Wikipedia, GFDL license, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Glasser
*[[Perlo group]], from Wikipedia, GFDL license, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlo_group
*[[Soccer]], from Wikipedia, GFDL license, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(soccer)
*[[Switzerland]], from Wikipedia, GFDL licence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

==Copied from a source that is probably public domain==
*USS Nautilus, from http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/nucfield/Background/history.htm

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-13T17:44:02Z

PaulB: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million miles."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Switzerland

2007-03-13T17:20:54Z

PaulB: Copyright violations?

All i have to say about this article is, WOW. Just one person did all this!!!! i am very interested in this and will try to read as much as i can before goin brain dead from so much info. :) nice post. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Some of it was a collaborative effort from wikipedia, and it still has some of the tags there aswell. I am swiss however and can verify the information posted here.

Snakemike sign could you, kinda help who said what in a discussion.:) if you know more on Switerland, the go ahead and fix it up. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I'm still kind of new to this thing. -Snakemike

== Copyright violations? ==

I'm not extremely concerned about copyright violations, but blatantly copying entries from Wikipedia without giving proper credits under the GDFL might get the "author" or even Conservapedia itself into legal trouble. Just thought I'd mention it. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-03-13T17:04:52Z

PaulB: /* The following is incorrect */

== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Catholic

2007-03-13T16:28:31Z

PaulB: Indeed, as Bo says, this statement is wildly inaccurate. It should be replaced with a more precise statement.

A Catholic is a person who follows [[Catholicism]]. Catholics follow the [[Pope]], who is the Bishop of Rome and traditionally lives in the [[Vatican]].

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-03-13T16:24:17Z

PaulB: /* The following is incorrect */

== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Adultery

2007-03-13T16:13:57Z

PaulB: revert vandalism

Adultery is the sin of "knowing" or "laying with" someone other than your husband or wife. The Bible forbids adultery in the [[Ten Commandments]]. The punishment for adultery, according the Bible, should be death. Most, if not all, Christians don't follow this punishment because we don't have to follow the law any more - just believe in [[Jesus]].

Charles Darwin

2007-03-13T16:13:13Z

PaulB: reverted last edit

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was a famous naturalist born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He is best known for the [[Theory of Evolution|theory of evolution]], which suggest that biological species develop over time via natural selection, branching from common origins. Outside of evolution in particular, he was regarded as an expert on barnacles as well as credited with discovering how coral atolls were formed.

==Early Career==

Darwin graduated tenth in his class at Christ's College in Cambridge (April, 1831). Although he intended on becoming a country parson and accepted the Bible as literally true, his intense interest in nature and discovering her secrets displaced his desire for a life as a clergyman. Darwin became the protege of the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, a professor of botany, and the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, a geologist. Henslow and Sedgwick encouraged Darwin to pursue his interests as a naturalist.

After touring the [[Galapagos Islands]] and studying the animals that lived there, Darwin developed an interest in the patterns of species distribution he had documented on the journey, as well as his realization that the economic theories of Thomas Malthus might have some application in the biological world. Researching this issue on a global scale, he slowly developed his theory of [[natural selection]] and finally published ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' in [[1859]]. Darwin had not originally meant to publish his work so early in his life, and in fact was quite fearful of what the reception might be, but was prompted to do so after being contacted by another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who had developed similar ideas.

==Religious Beliefs==

Charles Darwin was a Christian up and through his famous five year voyage on the ''HMS Beagle''. But in the ensuing two years after returning to England (1836 to 1839; and in his late twenties) Darwin abandoned Christianity (1) and [sic] "had become a 'materialist' (more or less equivalent to an atheist" (2). About twenty years later in 1859 (at the age of fifty) Darwin published his famous book ''The Origin of Species''. "In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications" (3). According to Darwin, the "manifestly false history of the world" (4) as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity (5). Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparitive evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" (6). Yet, in spite of these views, when he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

When investigating transmutation of species he knew that his naturalist friends thought this a bestial heresy undermining miraculous justifications for the social order, the kind of radical argument then being used by Dissenters and atheists to attack the Church of England's privileged position as the established church. Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God. When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.". Ultimately he found that his discoveries conflicted with the belief in God as the one and only truth.

'''References'''

1. Mayr, Ernst ''Growth of Biological Thought'' (1982:402).

2. Mayr, Ernst ''One Long Argument'' (1991:75).

3. Ibid. (1991:75).

4. Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darin'' (1958:85).

5. Ibid. (1958:85-87).

6. Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' (2002:341)

== External Links ==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Darwin%27s_Illness Darwin's illness - CreationWiki]

Iraq

2007-03-13T16:12:47Z

PaulB: reverted biased statements

{{stub}}
A [[Middle East|Middle-Easter]]n country, invaded in 2003 and currently occupied by a U.S.-led coalition.

[[Category:Countries]]

Benito Mussolini

2007-03-13T16:10:51Z

PaulB: revert nonsense

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was born July 29, 1883 and died April 28, 1945. He is infamously known as dictator of [[Italy]] in the time of [[World War II]]. He was head of one of the totalitarian forms of government seen in Europe in this time. He called his political structure [[Fascism]], a term which was later used to describe any government which put the national identity above the people. Like all totalitarian forms of government, he bullied the weak. He increased his military, limited free speech and pushed his political views on all of his country. [[Adolf Hitler]] and he were allies during [[World War II]]. He was shot after an attempt at escape from allied forces.

He didn't make the trains run on time, as is often claimed.

[[Category:Biographies]]

Osama Bin Laden

2007-03-13T16:10:33Z

PaulB: revert nonsense

Osama Bin Laden is the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide Muslim terrorist group thought to be responsible for [[9-11]] and other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He was protected by the Taliban until the American invasion of Afghanistan after [[9-11]] drove him into hiding.

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2007-03-13T16:03:59Z

PaulB: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Entropy

2007-03-13T15:46:17Z

PaulB:

Most creationists have rejected the simpler forms of the second law of thermodynamics thing. --[[User:John|John]] 00:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not a young earth creationist, but isn't this one of the things on Answers in Genesis's list of "arguments that should not be used"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like the label "creationist", but I find the entropy argument very persuasive. Maybe it depends on how the argument is presented, but the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] is fundamental and never, ever violated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: MountainDew, in a word yes. The argument is actually one of the most painfully flawed of all creationist arguments- the 2nd law as a statement of entropy levels only applies to closed systems and the Earth (where evolution is occuring) is not a closed system. Furthermore, it isn't even clear that evolution decreases the local level of entropy anyways. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:On the contrary, 2nd law is indeed violated on the quantum scale, and even on the macro scale if you wait a ''very'' long time. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::But for most, if not all, systems, that would be a meaninglessly long time for a noticeable violation. I'm not sure that the concept of entropy is actually applicable on the quantum scale (whatever that may mean ;-). Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity and hence is only meaningful for large assemblies of particles. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 11:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-03-13T13:16:11Z

PaulB: /* The following is incorrect */

Velocity

2007-03-13T11:37:14Z

PaulB: new article

The '''velocity''' of an object is the rate of change of its [[position]]. If the position of an object is some [[function]] of [[time]], then the velocity is the [[derivative]] of that function:

:''v''(''t'') = d''x''/d''t'',

where ''x'' is the position and ''v'' is the velocity. The velocity is a [[vector]], and its length or absolute value is called the ''speed''. The velocity has dimensions of length / time, and may thus be expressed in meter per second (in scientific usage). In daily life, miles per hour and kilometers per hour are more common units.

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Hippocrates

2007-03-13T11:15:02Z

PaulB:

Not sure the less sentence is necessary or fair. --[[User:John|John]] 23:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:I slightly rewrote it. I think "profit" is not really a neutral formulation, and also, one does not need to be a physician to "profit" from it, but one does need to be a physician to take this oath and be bound by it. Also, I explicitly inserted "in its original formulation", as there are many variants in use today that do not include the statement on induced abortion. One can of course argue whether these are "false oaths", but I think that referring to "the original formulation" is a clear and accurate statement. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 07:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Hippocrates

2007-03-13T11:14:56Z

PaulB: slight rephrasing of the last sentences

Hippocrates, the “father of medicine,” lived 460-377 B.C. He issued the “Hippocratic Oath” that has been required of medical students around the world as a condition of graduation. It originally stated in part: “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. (...) I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce [[abortion]].” Hippocrates saw abortion as being in direct opposition to a doctor’s role of promoting life and health. Physicians who practice abortion today do not obey this Oath in its original formulation.

[[Category:Biographies]]

Standard temperature and pressure

2007-03-12T21:48:28Z

PaulB:

In [[thermodynamics]], '''Standard Temperature and Pressure''' is defined as a [[temperature]] of 273 K and a [[pressure]] of 1.00 atm.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Netherlands

2007-03-12T21:44:45Z

PaulB: some small edits: added population, added some links

The Netherlands is a country in [[Europe]]. It is bordered by [[Belgium]] and [[Germany]], and has a total population of approximately 16 million (2007).

As its name implies, it is a very low-lying country. About a quarter of the land area, containing more than half of the population, is actually below sea level, and would flood if the sea were not held back by a system of dikes.

A major breach of the dikes occurred in 1953, killing 1800 people.

Amsterdam, named for the Amstel river, is the largest city, and officially the capital (although the seat of government is actually in The Hague). It is traversed by an extensive system of canals.

Eindhoven is the location of the giant electronics corporation, Philips (full name: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.), with annual revenue equivalent to about $40 billion. (The U.S. corporation General Electric has revenues of about $150 billion, but much of it is from non-electronics businesses).

The Netherlands has long been famous for its production of flowers, and also for a related economic event, the "tulip mania" of 1636-1637. A classic example of a "bubble," tulips were traded on stock exchanges, and bid up to fantastic prices by people who understood that the prices were crazy but hoped to sell at a profit to even crazier investors. As with all bubbles, when bidding began to lag, people tried to sell and the bubble burst.

The Netherlands is also famous for its open-mindedness reflected in its [[liberal]] legislation. Examples are organized prostitution in designated areas of major cities, such as Amsterdam's Red Light District, the legal soft drugs sold in the country's many coffee shops, wide [[abortion]] rights, same-sex marriages and euthanasia.

[[Image:Netherlands_map.gif]]

[[Category:Countries]]

Amédée Mannheim

2007-03-12T21:36:59Z

PaulB: linked calculator, minor edit (calculators already existed, but could not do complicated operations)

Amédée Mannheim (1831-1906) was a French mathematician who invented the modern form of the slide rule, which was the common method for performing complex arithmetic calculations until the invention of the electronic [[calculator]].

Logarithm

2007-03-12T21:35:32Z

PaulB: /* History */ linked calculator

A logarithm of a number is the exponential power to which you raise the base to obtain the number.

For high school algebra, the most common base is "10". For base 10, the definition becomes as follows: A logarithm of a number is the power to which you raise 10 to obtain the number.

For example, the logarithm of 100 is the power to which you raise 10 to obtain 100. Because 10 to the power of 2 equals 100, the logarithm of 100 is 2:

log 100 = 2 because 102 = 100

There are formulas for converting logarithms having different bases. To find a logarithm with base ''b'' using another base ''c'', use the following identity:

: <math> \log_b(x) = \frac{\log_c(x)}{\log_c(b)} </math>

==History==

It may be difficult for people growing up in the age of computers and pocket calculators to appreciate the practical importance of logarithms. They were used for centuries as a computing tool by scientists making pencil-and-paper computations.

Logarithms were invented or discovered by [[John Napier]] in 1614, and quickly revolutionized astronomy. Johannes Kepler said that Napier "tripled the life of an astronomer."

For centuries, tables of logarithms were working tools of the scientist and engineer. Students and people doing rough calculations typically used a "table of four-place logarithms," which would fit on one or two pages. Such tables were printed in the back of virtually every physics book. For more precise work, longer tables with more places of precision were used, or entire volumes.

Closely associated with logarithms was a tool called the ''slide rule.'' A slide rule consists of ruled logarithmic scales. By manipulating the slide rule, one can graphically add together the logarithm of two numbers, which is equivalent to multiplying them. From about 1870 to 1970, slide rules were used by virtually every scientist and engineer. They were regarded as a symbol of engineering. Engineering students were identifiable by the ten-inch slide rules attached to their belts. Learning to use a slide rule was a fundamental skill taught in high-school mathematics classes.

The arrival of pocket-sized electronic [[calculator]]s brought an end to the practical use of the slide rule or the table of logarithms. A calculator can compute a logarithm to ten places in less time than it takes to turn to the right page in a book-sized table of logarithms.

The Renaissance

2007-03-12T21:35:17Z

PaulB: /* '''Artists''' */ linked calculator

=='''The Renaissance'''==
----

The Renaissance was a cultural “rebirth” that began in [[Florence, Italy]], but spread to all of Europe from about 1300 to 1600 (1700 in Northern Europe).

During this time period, Europeans experienced a renewed interest in classical Greek and Roman civilization, and subsequently, in learning science, mathematics, literature, the arts and philosophy. The term “[[Renaissance man]]” has come to mean a man who is remarkably well-rounded and learned in every subject, as this is what was expected of men during the Renaissance. Women during the Renaissance were celebrated for their beauty, but were not expected to be educated.

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Renaissance_Terms Renaissance Terms (1300s - 1600s)]

==='''The Italian Renaissance'''===
----

[[Image: duomoflorence.jpg|thumb|left|320px|[[The Duomo]] of the [[The Duomo|Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral]] in [[Florence]]]]

The Northern city-states of [[Italy]] were a perfect location for the Renaissance to occur, as [[Italian culture]] was built off of classical Greek and Roman civilization. They had become important and wealthy locations selling and trading during the [[Crusades]], and [[Muslim]] and [[Byzantine]] learning had been brought to Italy also during the Crusades. Florence in particular was home to wealthy families willing to finance artists, mainly the prominent [[Medici]] family. Lastly, the fierce competition that existed between the different city-states brought out the best in people and created an environment in which initiative and creativity flourished.

This quote by [[Leon Battista Alberti]], "men can do all things if they will" sums up the spirit of the Renaissance well. Three philosophies emerged during the Renaissance: individualism, humanism and secularism. All three contained similarities and overlapped with one another to form the main philosophy, humanism.

==='''Artists'''===
----
The most lasting legacy of the Renaissance was probably the outstanding artwork it produced. Especially in Florence and [[Rome]], master artists emerged who produced astonishing works of art in sculpture, painting and architecture. The competitive spirit of the Italian city-states as well as the enormous wealth of families willing to patronize created a perfect environment for the flourishing of art.

[[Image: michelangelopieta.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Michelangelo's ''The Pietà'']]

One of the first artists to incorporate new ideas into his artwork was [[Giotto di Bondone]] (1267-1337) who brought unprecedented elements of realism in his paintings. [[Giotto]], a typical Renaissance jack-of-all-trades, also designed the innovative campanile (bell tower) for the [[The Duomo|Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral]]or simply "[[The Duomo]]" in Florence. Flemish artists introduced oil paints, and the technique of perspective was introduced by artists like [[Tommaso Masaccio]] and [[Brunelleschi]]. Brunelleschi also designed the duomo (dome) for the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral, a breakthrough in [[engineering]] and [[architecture]] that showed Brunelleschi’s deep understanding of mathematics.

[[Donatello]] (1386-1466) was an influential painter and sculpture of the early Renaissance from Florence. He sculpted a bronze “[[Donatello's David|David]],” the first free-standing nude statue since the days of the Greeks and Romans, and another famous statue of [[Donatello's St. George|St.George]]. [[Tiziano Vicelli|Titian]] (Tiziano Vicelli) (1477-1576) was a painter with an unprecedented use of color and loose brushwork, evident in his stunning masterpiece [[The Assumption of the Virgin]]. [[Raphael]] (1482-1520) also mastered the use of color and painted beautiful frescoes in churches and for private patrons, the most famous of which may be [[The School of Athens]], an interesting painting depicting [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] surrounded by their pupils. He inspired the two greatest artists of the Renaissance: [[Michelangelo]] and [[Leonardo da Vinci|Leonardo Da Vinci]].

[[Michelangelo]] (1475) is best known for his statue of [[Michelangelo's David|David]] and for painting the ceiling of the [[Sistine Chapel]], an astounding [[fresco]] including over 300 Biblical figures, that took over 4 years to complete. He also sculpted amazing renditions of [[Moses]] and “[[Michelangelo'sPieta|the Pietà]],” a poignant sculpture of Jesus in Mary’s arms after the [[Jesus' Crucifixion|crucifixion]]. Following Brunelleschi’s model Duomo in Florence, Michelangelo designed the dome for [[St. Peter’s Basilica]] in Rome. Although some say his earlier works (like David) reveal a humanistic outlook, later works (like the Pietà) reveal his deep and devout Christianity.

Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) embodied the “Renaissance man.” He was an architect, anatomist, sculptor, scientist, mathematician, musician, and painter. He created masterpieces such as the [[Mona Lisa]] and [[The Last Supper]]. He kept notebooks full of drawings such as [[Vitruvian Man]], and his observations from dissecting human corpses. It is said that Leonardo could draw with one hand while at the same time painting with the other, and he wrote backwards in his notebooks, so they would have to be held up to a mirror to be read. He was way ahead of his time and created conceptual designs for many devices such as a flying machine and an armored tank. He was the first to come up with the ideas of the [[calculator]] and the use of solar power for energy.

[[Image: monalisa.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Leonardo Da Vinci's ''[[The Mona Lisa|Mona Lisa]]'']]

==='''Authors'''===
----
Many authors produced influential literary works during the Renaissance. [[Dante]] was the writer whose works some historians date as marking the beginning of the Renaissance, and he is called the father of the Renaissance. He was an Italian writer who wrote in the [[vernacular]], or common language, so his works gained popularity among ordinary people as well as scholars. His most famous work is [[The Divine Comedy]], which describes in vivid detail the author’s journey through hell (''Inferno''), purgatory (''Purgatorio'') and heaven (''Paradiso''). Although called a “comedy”, the book is anything but funny. This is because Dante was using the classical meaning of “comedy”, in which a story is not necessarily humorous, but ends happily and according to the divine will of God. In The Divine Comedy, Dante blends pagan [[Greek philosophy]] with Christian theology, in the tradition of [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Dante’s guide through Hell is Virgil, and the greatest sinners present in Hell are [[Judas Iscariot]] (Jesus’ betrayer) and [[Brutus]] (Caesar’s betrayer).

Along with Dante, [[Francesco Petrarch]] (1304-1374) is considered a father of the Renaissance. He wrote beautiful poetry in Italian, but his books were written in Latin. His works and their focus on the classical philosophers inspired the humanism of the Renaissance.

[[Niccolo Machiavelli]] (1469-1527) wrote ''[[The Prince]]'', in which he explored the means by which a monarch can gain, retain, and increase his power. A prince must recognize the needs of the people, Machiavelli declared, and although his consensus was that it is better to be feared than loved, he

[[Image: michelangelodavid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Michelangelo's [[Michelangelo's David|David]] ''...Men can do all things if they will.'']]

additionally stated that it is ideal to be both feared and loved. Machiavelli served under [[Lorenzo Medidi]] of Florence, but was exiled. It was during his exile that he wrote ''The Prince''. Today the word “[[Machiavellian]]” has come to mean any unreasonable philosophy by which “the end justifies the means.”

==='''Philosophy'''===
----

The primary philosophy of the Renaissance was [[humanism]], which favored the capacity of man to reason and think for himself. This had two effects: on one hand, creativity and independent thinking were encouraged and learning greatly increased. Emphasis moved away from the sole focus on religious, spiritual things that was characteristic of the Middle Ages, to a focus on more tangible, earthly things. The study of nature and science was given its proper place. Art and literature became more realistic.

Calculator

2007-03-12T21:31:19Z

PaulB:

A '''calculator''' is a device for performing arithmetical operations, such as [[addition]] or [[multiplication]]. Most present-day calculators are [[electronics|electronic]] devices, but the first calculators were mechanical. One of the first calculators was designed by [[Blaise Pascal]].

Later, electromechanical calculators were constructed. Electronic calculators, first using [[vacuum tube]]s, then [[transistor]]s, and finally [[integrated circuit]]s ("chips"), have become small, cheap devices, that often have the capabilities of a full-fledged [[computer]].

Thermodynamics

2007-03-12T21:10:26Z

PaulB: /* Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics */ I put back the "isolated": it is essential to the second law, and indeed, if a system is not isolated, its entropy can easily decrease.

Thermodynamics is the study of the effects of work, heat, and energy on a system. Thermodynamics is only concerned with so-called ''macroscopic'' observations, which are observations on large numbers of particles.<ref>http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo.html</ref>.

==Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics==

For systems consisting of many particles (such as a [[gas]] consisting of many [[molecule]]s), it is possible to describe and predict the properties of the system accurately, even though it is virtually impossible to know what individual particles do. In essence, because of the large number of particles, one can apply [[statistics]] to learn about the "average" behavior of the system. The branch of [[physics]] known as [[statistical mechanics]] does just this.

"Classical" thermodynamics, on the other hand, predates this field, and makes ''no'' explicit reference to the constituent particles of a system. It consists of a number of "empirical" laws, which are derived purely from observations on thermodynamical systems, such as vessels of gas, or [[steam engine]]s. Well-known "laws" of thermodynamics are<ref>Mark W. Zemansky, ''Heat and Thermodynamics'', McGraw-Hill, New York, 1957</ref>

;[[The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics]]
:allows us to define the concept of [[temperature]], by stating that "''Two systems in thermal [[equilibrium]] with a third one are in thermal equilibrium with each other''". This law is called "zeroth" because it was only formulated after the three others, but is actually more fundamental, and hence deserves a lower number.
;[[The First Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states that [[energy]] is conserved and that [[heat]] is a form of energy.
;The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states (in one of its various formulations) that [[entropy]] in an isolated system cannot decrease, and that ''irreversible processes'' can only make it increase.<ref>Gregory H. Wannier, ''Statistical Physics'', John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966</ref>. An equivalent formulation states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cooler body to a hotter body.
;[[The Third Law of Thermodynamics]]
:also known as ''Nernst's Law'', states that it is not possible to bring any system to the [[absolute zero]] of temperature in a finite number of operations.

These laws tell us to what constraints ''any'' system is subject. The particular properties of a specific system cannot be calculated from these laws alone. More information is required: material constants, such as [[specific heat]] or [[isothermal compressibility]], tell us how a particular system will behave under thermodynamic processes.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Thermodynamics

2007-03-12T20:57:16Z

PaulB:

Thermodynamics is the study of the effects of work, heat, and energy on a system. Thermodynamics is only concerned with so-called ''macroscopic'' observations, which are observations on large numbers of particles.<ref>http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo.html</ref>.

==Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics==

For systems consisting of many particles (such as a [[gas]] consisting of many [[molecule]]s), it is possible to describe and predict the properties of the system accurately, even though it is virtually impossible to know what individual particles do. In essence, because of the large number of particles, one can apply [[statistics]] to learn about the "average" behavior of the system. The branch of [[physics]] known as [[statistical mechanics]] does just this.

"Classical" thermodynamics, on the other hand, predates this field, and makes ''no'' explicit reference to the constituent particles of a system. It consists of a number of "empirical" laws, which are derived purely from observations on thermodynamical systems, such as vessels of gas, or [[steam engine]]s. Well-known "laws" of thermodynamics are<ref>Mark W. Zemansky, ''Heat and Thermodynamics'', McGraw-Hill, New York, 1957</ref><ref>Gregory H. Wannier, ''Statistical Physics'', John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966</ref>

;[[The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics]]
:allows us to define the concept of [[temperature]], by stating that "''Two systems in thermal [[equilibrium]] with a third one are in thermal equilibrium with each other''". This law is called "zeroth" because it was only formulated after the three others, but is actually more fundamental, and hence deserves a lower number.
;[[The First Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states that [[energy]] is conserved and that [[heat]] is a form of energy.
;The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]
:states (in one of its various formulations) that the [[entropy]] in an ''isolated'' system cannot decrease, and that ''irreverible processes'' can only make it increase.
;[[The Third Law of Thermodynamics]]
:also known as ''Nernst's Law'', states that it is not possible to bring any system to the [[absolute zero]] of temperature in a finite number of operations.

These laws tell us to what constraints ''any'' system is subject. The particular properties of a specific system cannot be calculated from these laws alone. More information is required: material constants, such as [[specific heat]] or [[isothermal compressibility]], tell us how a particular system will behave under thermodynamic processes.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Radiocarbon dating

2007-03-12T20:26:31Z

PaulB: added some links

Radiocarbon dating is a method for estimating the age of material by measuring the amount of radiocarbon in it. This technique is based on assumptions about the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and measured [[half-life]] of carbon-14 as approximately 5568 ± 30 years.

When the age of the material is a few thousand years old, the assumptions become more important and the estimates are less reliable. Sometimes due to atmospheric disturbances the level of carbon-14 varies. For example, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere nearly doubled the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere.

Acceleration

2007-03-12T20:24:44Z

PaulB:

The time rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration is independent of the mass of the object, and is approximately 9.8 [[meter]] per [[second]] squared, the gravitational acceleration ''g''<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Acceleration

2007-03-12T20:24:10Z

PaulB: acceleration and force

The time rate of change of an object's [[velocity]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For an object to undergo an acceleration, a [[force]] needs to be exerted on the object. An example is a falling object on [[Earth]], which is subject to a [[gravity|gravitational force]]. The resulting acceleration is independent of the mass of the object, and is 9.8 [[meter]] per [[second]] squared, the gravitational acceleration ''g''<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Force

2007-03-12T20:20:21Z

PaulB: force and acceleration

A push or pull that changes the motion of an object.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref>. The force is related to the [[acceleration]] of the object by [[Newton's Second Law]], which states that F = m.a, that is, force equals mass times acceleration.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Friction

2007-03-12T20:15:39Z

PaulB:

A [[force]] resulting from the contact of two surfaces. This force opposes motion.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>. For solid bodies, one can distinguish two types of friction:

;[[static friction]]
:the force that is needed for motion to start if the surfaces are initially at rest with respect to each other.
;[[dynamic friction]]
:the force that is caused by friction once the surfaces are moving with respect to each other.

For solid surfaces, both types of friction depend (to a good approximation) only on the [[normal force]]. In particular, the dynamic friction does not depend on the velocity.<ref>Marcelo Alonso and Edward J. Finn, ''Fundamental University Physics'', Addison-Wesley.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

User:PaulB

2007-03-12T19:57:35Z

PaulB:

Welcome to my user page! Short statement: I'm Dutch, I'm a Ph.D. student, and I'm not a conservative (in fact, I'm pretty liberal, even for Dutch standards ;-)). I do think, however, that this project deserves a chance. I hope to be able to add some factual content to this project, particularly in the area of physics and the other sciences.

[[The Conservapedia Commandments]] are quite reasonable, and it should not be too hard to adhere by them. I personally prefer British spelling, but I have no problems using American spelling for this particular project. The CE/AD controversy is in my opinion a somewhat overblown case of political correctness. Everyone ''knows'' how the "Western" calender measures time, and there is not really any point in trying to conceal this.

I'm curious to see how this project develops. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 15:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)