User talk:81.101.244.221

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, anonymous editor! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun! While you are free to continue to edit as, and be identified by, your IP address, you might prefer to create an account (they're free!), or log in if you already have one. If you create an account, your IP address will not be displayed and you will face fewer editing restrictions.

Well hello there! How 'bout signing up for one of our free accounts? (You know you want to!) Sign up now and receive a free Gideon bible! May only include New Testiment. Must be picked up from nearest Hotel drawer. Not tradeable for Muslim equivalent. The RationalWiki Foundation accepts no responsibility for the contents of the book of Revelation, the Gospels, any portion of the Old Testiment included in the product, or any other grouping of word-like smudges. No warranty provided. May include marginal dick jokes. Offer ends 1 Jan 2014.

What should we be talking about then? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 00:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk about what you want. I am no judge. I merely observe what RW wants to talk about. Computer games and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JK_Rowling . I just laugh. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs}

That would be what we call a 'redirect,' to a page that is actually relevant. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Blue (is useful) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Diggler

Given the pattern of editing and the preferred topics, I bet a dead mole that this is Drik Steele.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very nearly almost correct but not quite. Do you need me to spell it out for you? Call me Dick. Dick Stool. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Dirk, why don't you just ask for your account to be unblocked?--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You want me to bow down to a sysop and kiss their little anal sphincter? No thanks. I do not prefer to be a master anymore than I want to be a slave. I accept your block for two years. It says more about who you are than about me. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the section name was a pop-culture reference, and the other use was a typo.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was the typo I referenced... although I am a bit of a Diggler too... ;-) 81.101.244.221 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton - I am not too stupid to beg to be unblocked. I just won't bow down to lick full of shit arses like yours.

Infinite Universe

Do you think it wise to move Steady State Universe to Infinite Universe? Everett's multiverse theory implies an infinite but not steady state universe. Likewise Lee Smolin's ideas on universes being created via big bangs from the singularity at the centre of a black hole. This is different to Fred Hoyle's views. Has the author also considered Hawking radiation from a black hole which states how new matter can be created. Anyone interested in the It from Bit theory? - or even Digital Physics? 81.101.244.221 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Any comments on this theory Forests (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds totally dreadful to me. For a start I do not accept that matter and time are infinitely divisible and prefer the view proposed by Zuse, Fredkin, Seth Lloyd, Jürgen Schmidhuber, and many others regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics. Only because I used to be obsessed with Conway's Game of Life and Computer Automata theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory . I am now trying to get to grips with M-theory and Branes. Trouble is my maths is shit and despite Feynman saying "If all mathematics disappeared, it would set physics back precisely one week", I am not in a position to refute this claim. :-( 81.101.244.221 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Full on crankery. http://www.scientificphilosophy.com or http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html. Uber quackery x 10. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is crankery but I cannot find any reviews of it, no scientist has reviewed his theory. If you know of any other infinite universe models (no matter how crankery) let me know and I put them on the article. I have just found this one Link Forests (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I have given you Lee Smolin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_the_Cosmos and Hugh Everett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation. I think you need to differentiate between the steady state theories and infinite universe concepts. They are very different proposals. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)