User talk:JerryOrr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. es-1 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español. This user's time zone is UTC-4.
Search user languages

Contents 1 Before the Big Bang 2 Thief in garden image 3 Blessed Are the Barren 4 Russia vs Soviet Union 5 Organized Labour 6 McMartin Preschool Trial 7 Crowscream 8 London matchgirls strike 9 DYK 10 Johnny 11 DYK 12 Beer poll

[edit] Before the Big Bang

From the Big Bang article you may have read that there is no model before the Planck Epoch, that is to say nobody really knows what happened before this age of the universe. There are plenty of self-consistent theories that are possible explanations (including Hartle-Hawking initial state, string theory, and branes), but these ideas have never been subject to observable falsification.

As to the question of whether this permits an intelligent designer, this depends on whether you think that a first cause is permitted. There are those Christian apologists (such as William Lane Craig) who seem to think that a first cause is required. We know this is false. A first cause may exist, or it may be some other kind of universe where there is no first cause at all.

The issue with intelligent design is that those advocating it claim that there is absolute evidence for the intelligent designer. This is an untenable situation. The absolute best we can do with respect to that supposition is say that there is a lack of evidence one way or the other. This is the classic God of the gaps scenario. We just don't know so you are allowed to have whatever contrived idea you wish to impose provided it doesn't conflict with any observations. Recall, however, that every time before someone bet on the God of the gaps it was discovered later that there were natural explanations that didn't require deity (e.g. lightning). This is a cautionary tale, but it isn't preemptory. Belief in an intelligent designer at the ab initio point is permitted but it certainly isn't required and there is no evidence for or against such a belief.

Hope this answers your question. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather impossible to establish a "beginning" that appears from nothing, as there is no comparable model (that I know of) in our universe; everything is composed from, evolved from, or designed by something else. The universe itself (or the intelligent designer, if you follow that theory) seems to be the only exception.

This isn't quite correct. Ex nihilo creation does occur in our universe, for example in pair production seen in quantum mechanics. The vacuum (our best definition of "nothing") acutally has a vacuum energy density associated with it that allows for particles to effectively quantum tunnel from "nothingness". There are versions of the origin of the universe which involve it quantum tunneling into existence that are explainable using very basic extensions of GR and QM. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... but if I'm understanding the situation you described correctly, that doesn't seem to me to be exactly Ex nihilo. Vacuum energy, while not matter, is still something. It had to come from somewhere, didn't it? If I'm remembering my physics correctly, there is a constant amount of matter and energy (combined) in the universe; energy may turn into matter, and vice versa, but matter and energy are never created or destroyed. I'm not real familiar with vacuum energy, so maybe that's not part of the equation, but it still seems to me like the vacuum energy had to come from somewhere.

This is a fascinating discussion (for me at least). I hope I'm not bothering you with these questions; I realize you're probably not here for the purpose of educating users in quantum physics. If I'm getting on your nerves, by all means let me know! JerryOrr 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you claim that the "vacuum energy" is still "something", then you're going to have to explain what "nothing" is. In short, we have no way of describing space without including vacuum energy. The closest thing we have to a definition of "nothing" is a vacuum. In some sense, the conservation of energy (which is what you are referring to in your idealization of a constant amount of matter and energy) is not valid for these quantum mechanical events due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There are those who argue that there is a version of the uncertainty principle that allows for the existence of the universe rather than the existence of "nothing". Of course, these issues are not worked out, but it seems clear that there are versions of theorertical cosmogony which allow for a "comparable model" where things "come into being" without being "composed from, evolved from, or designed by something else". --ScienceApologist 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thief in garden image

I'll take your recommendation into account regarding future uploads. In fact I thought the image was quite small for a 1024*768... Besides, I saw it loading almost instantly in the Tronica page and also rather quickly in the image page itself, so I just thought it was OK. Maybe it's because of the metadata from my camera. I had no idea I was uploading that too! Thanx, anyway --Doppelgangland 09:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blessed Are the Barren

Jerry, thanks for tracking down the source book Blessed Are the Barren on the Margaret Sanger article. I pored over their web page trying to find the author and/or source without any luck - I should have looked harder! MFNickster 23:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bugging me for a while, too. I searched all over the place, but every site with the article just had the same canned statement that it came from the "January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine"; no place even mentioned the author. I actually found the site for Citizen's Magazine, but their archives didn't go back that far. Finally, I got fed up and emailed family.org (the parent site for Citizen's Magazine), and they provided me with the information. A lot of work just to find a citation, but I'm anal like that, especially on the Sanger article ;-) --JerryOrr 23:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia vs Soviet Union

Thanks for the copyediting you did on the Bill Haywood article... I really need someone looking at that article besides myself! I noticed you changed Russia to Soviet Union in a couple places. I had actually changed them from Soviet Union to Russia originally, because I believe that at the time Haywood went there, it was still Russia. Haywood went there in 1921, and according to the Soviet Union article, "the Soviet Union was a socialist state that existed from 1922 — 1991". Of course, he wasn't there long before the Soviet Union officially came into being, but that was my motivation.

So, having said that... do you still think it should be Soviet Union? It matters little to me either way, I just want to get the article accurate. --JerryOrr 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. If he fled in '21, Russia is more correct on where he fled to. Probably should be accompanied by an HTML comment pointing out that it wasn't the Soviet Union until '22. I had thought it was '20, and didn't check. - Jmabel | Talk 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to Russia, and added the HTML comment as you suggested. Thanks for the input! --JerryOrr 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organized Labour

Hi Jerry, I saw your name on the list a couple weeks ago, and meant to stop by and say welcome. So - a little late, but welcome to the project. You've done a pile of work on Bill Haywood, and it looks great. (BTW, the WP:CSB is a good part of what got me interested in the area as well.) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia could always use more info on organized labor, and I have plenty to learn about it, so it works out both ways. I'm looking forward to contributing more. --JerryOrr 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you still interested in a new stub for labour disputes? I just put a list of 30 up on the project page. Bookandcoffee 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, sorry if I dragged you into anything here. I'll dig up the links to the last discussion so you can make up your own mind about the stub thing. cheers. Bookandcoffee 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive20#WikiProject Organized Labour

Heh, no problem... as long as they don't expect me to rename all those templates and recategorize all the articles, it doesn't much matter to me what they're named. I just want to get my labor dispute stub. Thanks for your help in this! --JerryOrr 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I just saw your fancy new {{labor-dispute-stub}} at London Dock Strike of 1889. :) Good work. --Bookandcoffee 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I hope the format is alright. Feel free to alter it if you can make it better. And thanks again for putting together that list of pages... it made getting it approved a lot easier! --JerryOrr 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McMartin Preschool Trial

You wrote: were ALL the allegations bizarre? do you have a source for that?

I am not the person you were questioning, but I do have an answer. The answer is yes, in no uncertain terms. The best source of information about this is the book "The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial"" (Paperback) by Paul Eberle, Shirley Eberle. I've read it and is one of the most informative sources of information about the history of the McMartin witch hunt. There are also some sites on the web you can fin using Yahoo or Google. Hope this helps. -- Jason Palpatine 01:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowscream

To be honest, yes it is worth it. i put a lot of love and time into that article. its about a cause i believe in and a individual who i deeply respect. i dont know much about you, but i am pritty sure you have some very important things in your life you care about, family, friends and work. if you think i am overreacting, imagine someone taking away the picture with your face on it that says Worker of the Month away from the wall because ...supossedly... you keep kissing up to the boss.

i have no problem with rewriting the articel to make it, correct and looking less like we are trying to advertise. what we are doing to some degree, not like a organisation but more in the sense of ´´kids who like to write``. if you or anyone else wants to rewrite the article, make a list of names, and i will look up other luciferians too help use so we have a well balanced team of writers. Cro..Scream

[edit] London matchgirls strike

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for your kind words.

I tend to use the Havard reference system so let me know if I've left anything out. I've used two references: The Shocking History of Phosphorus. A Biography of the Devil's Element by John Emsley, Published by Macmillan Press, 2000, ISBN 0 333 76638 5. The other one is the book I've quoted in Albright and Wilson. I don't have this book at present, its at the bookbinders for repair but I can get the ISBN in about 10 days time when it comes back.

Emsley has quite some, secondary, detail on the strike, but it is spread throughout Chapter 4. Threlfall gives Bryant and May's side of the story, since Bryant and May, Albright and Wilson and Swedish Match go back together to 1855, or thereabouts.

Best regards, Phil. Pyrotec 17:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanded the article some more and put in most of the references, but I need your help to convert them; it probably needs some Copyedit-ing. I'll do the rest early next month once I have all the source materials. Pyrotec

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article London matchgirls strike of 1888, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny

Just wanted to say that I loved Yucca Mountain Johnny -- I hadn't run across that one yet! Nothing like a poorly drawn and generic looking miner to inspire kids to take a reasonable view on nuclear waste! I added a picture of him and put it up for DYK, just FYI. --Fastfission 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I saw it in Newsweek, and I was suprised to find nobody had added it yet! I got a kick out if it as well. Thanks for adding the pic, too... I couldn't find a complete image of Johnny, and I didn't feel like piecing together multiple images off the DOE site to make it (which is what I assume you did).

I actually did put it up for DYK already, under the May 31 section. We worded our blurbs differently, but as long as it gets up there, I think some people will find it interesting. --JerryOrr 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On June 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yucca Mountain Johnny, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The DYK factoids should be simple to draw in readers. I think the mere fact that a cartoon character was created to explain nuclear waste to children is of enough interest to pull in readers, without having to add all sorts of other bits that will only detract. No, I don't work for Big Tobacco or Big Nuclear. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-05 15:46

[edit] Beer poll

Hi! Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [1] SilkTork 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)