| You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.
There are a couple outstanding requests. Please rule on them one way or another. Thanks. Adrignola 16:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
i have an issue. and that is the following.. if nothing can exceed the speed of light, than how is it possible that the inflation at the very beginning, exceeded this parameter? (or am i just a tad ignorant?) according to my information, this inflation, after the first 100 seconds, was equal to the size of our galaxy!? light obviously takes longer than that to cross it! --alexander 09:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I may be remembering wrong, but I think I saw/heard about an experiment done in a lab where it was discovered that light doesn't travel at a constant speed, that gravity can bind light and influence the speed in which light travels, and in some circumstances its possible for sound to travel faster than the speed of light when gravity has the affect of slowing down the speed of light. So the answer might be in the beginning light traveled at a slower speed and over time became faster when gravitational forces caused light to bind at just the right angel to speed it up. -- darklama 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest looking into general relativity to learn more about how the speed of light, time, and gravity are connected. Devourer09 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, that theory puts emphasis on the fact that the speed of light is constant and time is variable. Most people will assume that time changes at a constant rate but this is not true. Devourer09 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is my project appropriate for Wikiversity?
Hello! I'm new to Wikiversity, though I have some experience contributing to Wikibooks and to Wikipedia. I have started a project on Wikibooks, where one Wikibookian has told me that this project may be better suited to Wikiversity. (A second Wikibookian also questioned the project's appropriateness to Wikibooks, but seems to have dropped his/her opposition.) As I explained to that editor, I don't wish to move my project to Wikiversity only to discover Wikiversitians advising me to move it to Wikibooks! So I'd like your views, please. Would my project be welcomed at Wikiversity? I hope you'll comment. My project is called "Wikistution." It is a very serious experiment (in the loose sense of the term "experiment") in an evolving version of the United States Constitution to see if 21st-century collaborative techniques might be feasible as a substitute for the 18th-century amendment procedure provided for in Article V. It is not associated with a class or a school, though it could be so used. I recognize that a project of this kind will attract pranksters, but it is intended in perfect seriousness. The Wikipedia concept seemed (to many) laughable and has worked vastly better than most expected. I am interested in seeing if the low expectations many would hold for Wikistution might also be vastly exceeded. If the project succeeds, those who take a constructive interest in it will limit the intrusions of the pranksters. So in short, Wikistution is a United States Constitution in wiki format, with an invitation to all edit it in the ways they judge best, consistent with the premise that governments derive their just powers by the consent of the governed, and that citizens institute such governments to secure their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Would Wikiversitians welcome this project? Appreciatively, --Norton 13:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikiversity. I think Wikistution is welcome here and would be a good home for it. I'm writing this mostly for the benefit of anyone else since you already know this from me. I hope more people will welcome you and Wikistution to Wikiversity. I think this resource is similar to Great Repeal Bill, but unlike that resource this one is intended more as an exercise or theoretical experiment which I believe will still encourage educational debate useful for anyone interested in Jurisprudence and understanding governance. I believe Wikistution is perfect for Wikiversity since debates are a form of active engagement in learning. -- darklama 10:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Darklama. I believe you've characterized Wikistution accurately, and your judgment that Wikistution belongs here is reassuring. I am convinced that Wikistution is appropriate for Wikiversity, but I will welcome any different views from other Wikiversitians. - Norton 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Am I required to cite sources here, like on Wikipedia? Accelerometer 22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The citation format and style can be different from Wikipedia's. I don't know Wikipedia's rules on citation to know exactly if Wikiversity's requirements are the same or different. You are only required at a minimal to cite your sources when you actually use, rely on, or refer to a source for information you include. We just want to know where you got your information from if you aren't explaining from your own experiences or understanding of a subject. Beyond that you might be asked to cite sources if the accuracy of information is in question and you aren't writing some original idea. -- darklama 23:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Just asking. Accelerometer 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
How to interact with other wikiversitarians and find collaborators
--Opriter 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)I would like to know how to interact with other wikiversitarians and find colaboators
- Either via the Colloquium here or via Talk pages. You can also colloborate by editing and improving pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
--184.108.40.206 13:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) this is good oppertunity to avail
"Pages moved from Wikipedia"
A number of pages that I have written (many of them resubmissions of things that I had written at Conservapedia, but never Wikipedia, and, in any case, were resubmissions, not copying), have had the template marking "Pages moved from Wikipedia" added to the bottom. These include things in my personal sandbox, like User:SamHB/MVCalc2. I never added those templates, and their presence is incorrect. Looking at the category itself, it appears to be things created with "special:import", a function that I know nothing about and don't have permission to use.
I'm a little annoyed by the implication that these pages were copied from WP. It appears to be a software bug, or perhaps someone making an incorrect assumption. Can someone fix this?
--SamHB 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, you should find this is fixed now. What was happening was that the category "Pages moved from Wikipedia" as being added because one of the templates you have on that page has been added to Category:Pages moved from Wikipedia but in such a way that any pages which use that template also get added to the category. I've edited the template so this won't happen now although it remains possible that you may find on some pages it remains as there could be another template also incorrectly adding the category. Adambro 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)