Well, that depends on what you're talking about.

In terms of us living in a "4-dimensional" world that's the concept of a combined spacetime for the purposes of simplifying formulas and theories in physics. This is different from four spatial dimensions.

There's also a lot of other theories that deal with 4 or more spatial dimensions, such as multiple, small dimensions being curled up within our own. Or that ours is a three-dimensional reality within a 4-dimensional p-brane, or any other number of oddities. But even with those - say a 4-brane - we'd still say it's 5-dimensional since we'd add the single chronologial dimension.

But by and large when someone refers to our universe as 4-dimensional, they're just referring to 3 spatial dimensions and one chronological dimension combined into a single concept.

I knew you'd go to Wikipedia sooner or later.

_________________

The speed of light in a vacuum, or a medium, and the relativistically 'inviolable' constant c are not necessarily the same thing. It is also not the same value in every frame of reference. Experiments have been set up in which light travels faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (albeit very minutely). It can't be used to send information, but to be fair even if it could we have no photodetector fast enough to measure it.

If light can be accelerated beyond it's usual speed in a dielectric, and can be demonstrated to also do so in a vacuum, it stands to reason that its speed may not be a constant. It's just constant in most cases, and in all cases we can observe.

There also are astronomical existence proofs that a massive particle can indeed be accelerated to very close to the speed of light, with a finite energy. Something that relativity does not allow, and because we 'know' it can't be wrong we accept that something else is at play.

I work in a library, with an ample supply of books by plenty of prominent physicists. We even are fortunate enough to have audio tapes of lectures by Richard Feynman. I find it all very interesting.

But as an aside...even if I did read something on Wikipedia...what exactly would be wrong with that? I never understood that "dig".

Wikipedia is unreliable/a joke. It's funny that you work at a library and take it as a serious source for information/research.

I used to love in undergrad when kids would turn in papers with nothing but Wikipedia as their citation sources. Fucking idiots.

The only bad thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. But it helps you get on the right direction when you are looking for information. I don't get the hate. ;P

Oh, and no, it shouldn't be used as a source in research papers. But, still, it's a nice place to find information.

Only kids will end up using Wikipedia as an official resource. But the question of whether it's reliable isn't too disputed. I need to make that link I had a while back of the study done finding Wikipedia MORE accurate than most encyclopedic sources a macro.

Sure, if you catch it at the wrong time it's inaccurate, right after modifications. Given the sheer amount of hawks watching it though, usually at all hours from what I've seen, changes are revised back within half an hour to an hour depending on the time of day. Give it a try, if you want.. see how long it takes =)

Seriously. Wiki is the best starting point. Any half decent article will have a good summary of the information about whatever you are looking for. A good article will have a lot more information than a real paper encyclopedia could ever hope to contain as well as links to related information and a source list that will let you confirm the information at the very least or give you a dozen books you can use.

Yes people can misuse wikipedia like Colbert encouraging his fans to change articles but every single time that happens the ravenous editors jump on it.

Yup, very easy to double-check references.

There's also the common sense test, and "does it add up and make sense with what else I know?".

Just as example, when you read this about the gray wolf: "In general, height varies from 0.6 to .95 meters and (26–38 inches) at the shoulder, with weight typically ranging from 20 (44 lb.) to 68 (150 lb.) kilograms, which together make the gray wolf the largest of all wild canids" the height and weight sound about right with casual observance, and nothing off the top of my head comes to mind when I think of a larger (wild) canine species.

If it's really important to you, you should always double-check your sources whether it's Wikipedia or the New York Times.

Because I love this video:

Wikipedia is a great starting point to find other references.

Wikipedia is a joke, didn't you hear him?!

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

So is a library or .edu website. Why go to Wikipedia when you have access to a zillion other better sources through your school?

You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you?

Wikipedia lists sixteen books. I write down said names. I see if said books are on Gutenberg or similar sites. If I can't find any, I hit the shelves.

Why skip the first steps?

I love this argument. It's right up there with IT idiots that claim open source software that has a huge adoption rate isn't as stable, secure or reliable as their custom code.

Hat tip: Something that 1,000 people watching, modifying and caretaking is generally a lot better than 10 people.

Seriously? I mean... really-- seriously?

I guess I'm not lazy, and I went to a good school that taught me how to do proper research. You probably don't have a degree anyhow, so who cares?

LOL

So how about those Siftables?

Seriously?

I can't wait till he says that to a client.

I'd be happy to email this entire forum to any visitor to his office.

Yes, because as if how I post on the internet is in any way indicative to how I treat people IRL.

It's not as if I respect people who don't have college degrees less, I just respect those who do more. Someone who likely doesn't have a college education, talking about what is acceptable and conducive to a college education, is tantamount to a farmer talking about trading stocks on Wall Street.

Who were you implying doesn't have a degree, anyway? Me?

No, you're a teacher, you probably do unless you aren't a licensed/certified teacher.

More specifically I was thinking Syuni, Argrax, Joxur, Sarissa, Snarky, etc. The peanut gallery.

So, you'd automatically think less of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Jobs because none of them graduated college? Seriously?

_________________

Exceptions to the rule don't make the rule, duder.

Well, isn't it wiser to do less and manage to get the same result? Isn't that more respectable than someone who does more and gets the same results as someone who did less? The first person is more productive than the second.

It is like someone who sticks to long ways of solving equations in math even after learning the short cuts. It doesn't make sense that someone would want to spend more time achieving a result they could achieve by doing less and spending less time.

I definitely have more respect for rich kids whose families pay to send them on a four year drinking binge than for people who work for a living. Yeah... you can fuck off.

Elitism, arrogance, deliberate ignorance, and an admittance that you're willing a huge douche online but "a different person IRL". Yeah. You'll do the bar proud.

And hey, keep soothing yourself with whatever fantasies you imagine my life to be, sir. Whatever gets you through the long, lonely nights ahead.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being proud that I was lucky enough, and worked hard enough to earn my education and degree. Shrug.



I worked full-time while going to school full-time and raised a child (and continue to do so) and maintained a happy, successful marriage. The results are a very promising future, and content current life. I'm pretty happy with myself. Exceptions don't make the rule, I know, and I don't disagree with your general view on college students, though I think the party animals are in the minority.

Snip snap, lamers!

What does she see in you?

_________________

Money? Power? Prestige? Who knows.

Ah, that's kind of sad.

He probably knocked her up.

Her?

An oldie but goodie.

Sky's just afraid of admitting that something that's new and that he didn't use might be useful.

He'll be 85 still rolling around in a Lincoln Town Car when we all have our flying cars (ITS COMING DAMMIT) because "I went to a school that taught me how to do proper driving, and I have a wife and kid too."

Where we're going, we won't need roads.

Awesome!

Sure, there are great resources at school and at work. Most of our library is digital now. Still it takes quite a while to sift through new subjects and figure out who is worth reading. Finding the name of a contributing author helps cut through the junk articles. A lot of research is derivative. Those publications are where the work of non-thesis master's students goes.

I also gots me a science edubuhkashun. And if I want to look up a physics reference the last place I go is the library.

I hate to say it, but this is the truth. Nowadays, if you're starting from zero and wanting to research something, I wouldn't recommend going to the library first.

Our library on campus is fucking huge, and hardly a book is touched. Most people are studying their text books and if they need information they log onto one of the dozen computer stations and google shit. The only time people actually scour through the books is when a teacher specifically requests real books/resources being used, but with the state of the internet, all the citations and crap used to prove you used a real book can be found online as well.

Stand on the shoulders and all that. If it's worth quoting, someone probably already quoted it somewhere and you can find their works cited =p

I don't doubt that libraries have great resources. But read your own description of "sifting through the junk" and tell me how this is better than Wikipedia, which because of the aggregate contributions often already has the sifting done for you.

That was my point. The best part of Wikipedia is the citation list.

Yea, I think there's a general consensus here, minus Sky =p

I liked Colbert's description of it as a democratization of information(I'm sure other people probably said that, but that's when I first heard it coined with regard to Wikipedia).

oh... right! lol sorry Sarissa

Givin: bless your heart for posting that bit of hilarity.

Ah, the Lanys forums, where people have fairly interesting metaphysical debates while simultaneously throwing their feces around at each other.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

ROFL Given

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance