Talk:567: Urgent Mission - Revision history

172.71.102.81 at 06:32, 3 August 2022

2022-08-03T06:32:42Z

Mathmannix at 15:00, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T15:00:13Z

162.158.122.162 at 23:19, 10 December 2019

2019-12-10T23:19:25Z

Kynde at 15:35, 10 December 2019

2019-12-10T15:35:53Z

Kynde at 15:29, 10 December 2019

2019-12-10T15:29:07Z

108.162.218.154: Just a little correction

2016-03-06T14:22:15Z

Just a little correction

Danshoham at 03:48, 10 December 2015

2015-12-10T03:48:47Z

108.162.221.150 at 23:25, 24 August 2015

2015-08-24T23:25:13Z

108.162.238.168 at 15:48, 11 March 2015

2015-03-11T15:48:30Z

Pudder: Unsigned

2015-01-30T19:05:49Z

Unsigned

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 3 August 2022
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Those of us in the year 2020 would have preferred using the time machine for stopping pandemics...[[User:Mathmannix\|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix\|talk]]) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)		Those of us in the year 2020 would have preferred using the time machine for stopping pandemics...[[User:Mathmannix\|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix\|talk]]) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	: ...and those of us in 2022 would have preferred stopping dictators [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.81\|172.71.102.81]] 06:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 21 August 2020
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154\|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)		:No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154\|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
	::For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, which he draws in [[2222: Terminator: Dark Fate]], but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		::For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, which he draws in [[2222: Terminator: Dark Fate]], but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Those of us in the year 2020 would have preferred using the time machine for stopping pandemics...[[User:Mathmannix\|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix\|talk]]) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 10 December 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Do the same thing with dating conventions, Venerable Bede, and 0 AD. :-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150\|108.162.221.150]] 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)		Do the same thing with dating conventions, Venerable Bede, and 0 AD. :-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150\|108.162.221.150]] 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	There was not and should not have been a 0 CE (or AD) year. If there were, there would also have to be a 0 BCE (or BC) year. Sticking two zero years into the numbering system would not only have played havoc with mathematical systems which were incapable of treating zero as anything other than empty or null, but would also have created a historian's headache. Besides, even for those who believe in the Bible, God did not make Jesus "both Lord and Christ" until his ascension. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.162\|162.158.122.162]] 23:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

	Ben Franklin just decided to call two opposing charges positive and negative. Blame the guy who decided electrons should be considered negative and protons should be considered positive.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.71\|108.162.217.71]] 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)		Ben Franklin just decided to call two opposing charges positive and negative. Blame the guy who decided electrons should be considered negative and protons should be considered positive.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.71\|108.162.217.71]] 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse).  The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt.  [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 :No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-::For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
+::For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, which he draws in [[2222: Terminator: Dark Fate]], but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 10 December 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:

	At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. [[User:Danshoham\|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham\|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)		At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. [[User:Danshoham\|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham\|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
−
	:No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154\|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)		:No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154\|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
		+	::For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 6 March 2016
Line 18:		Line 18:

	At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. [[User:Danshoham\|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham\|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)		At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. [[User:Danshoham\|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham\|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.154\|108.162.218.154]] 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 10 December 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Wait, I interpereted it completely differently. What if Cueball thought that the Apocalyptic Inventor went evil out of rage over the charge confusion? Trying to make sure that the guy's reason for going evil counts as averting the apocalypse. -[[http://vectorlightning.tumblr.com VectorLightning the guest]]		Wait, I interpereted it completely differently. What if Cueball thought that the Apocalyptic Inventor went evil out of rage over the charge confusion? Trying to make sure that the guy's reason for going evil counts as averting the apocalypse. -[[http://vectorlightning.tumblr.com VectorLightning the guest]]
		+
		+	At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. [[User:Danshoham\|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham\|talk]]) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 24 August 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:

	In a circuit, it is the electrons, or the negative charges, that are actually travelling. The positive charges, the nuclei of the material carrying the current, remain fixed. This is opposite to the definition of current, which is defined as the flow of positive charge. In other words, the particles that we define as flowing in a current are not the ones that actually move. Confusing, right? I think what you may be referring to is when a salt solution undergoes electrolysis, the anions (negatively charged part of the salt) travel to the anode (positively charged electrode), and the cations (positively charged particles) travel to the cathode (negatively charged electrode). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.196\|173.245.52.196]] 06:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)		In a circuit, it is the electrons, or the negative charges, that are actually travelling. The positive charges, the nuclei of the material carrying the current, remain fixed. This is opposite to the definition of current, which is defined as the flow of positive charge. In other words, the particles that we define as flowing in a current are not the ones that actually move. Confusing, right? I think what you may be referring to is when a salt solution undergoes electrolysis, the anions (negatively charged part of the salt) travel to the anode (positively charged electrode), and the cations (positively charged particles) travel to the cathode (negatively charged electrode). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.196\|173.245.52.196]] 06:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Do the same thing with dating conventions, Venerable Bede, and 0 AD. :-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150\|108.162.221.150]] 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

	Ben Franklin just decided to call two opposing charges positive and negative. Blame the guy who decided electrons should be considered negative and protons should be considered positive.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.71\|108.162.217.71]] 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)		Ben Franklin just decided to call two opposing charges positive and negative. Blame the guy who decided electrons should be considered negative and protons should be considered positive.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.71\|108.162.217.71]] 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 11 March 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:What we need here is a time machine so we won't waste too much time arguing. {{unsigned\|Weatherlawyer}}		:What we need here is a time machine so we won't waste too much time arguing. {{unsigned\|Weatherlawyer}}
		+
		+	Wait, I interpereted it completely differently. What if Cueball thought that the Apocalyptic Inventor went evil out of rage over the charge confusion? Trying to make sure that the guy's reason for going evil counts as averting the apocalypse. -[[http://vectorlightning.tumblr.com VectorLightning the guest]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 30 January 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Up until Franklin's experiments with electricity, there was debate as to whether electricity came in two forms, vitreous, as in a glass rod rubbed with silk, and resinous, which other experiments before him was shown to be the one in the rubber rubbed with fur (or amber rubbed with fur, hence the name). Franklin felt there was a single "fluid" which flowed to produce an electric current. He felt that when an object such as the glass rod had an excess of this fluid, it was "positive", and when there was a deficiency of this fluid, the object was "negative". Current flow was the flow of a region of excess "fluid" to a region deficient in it. Unfortunately what actually flowed was electrons and the glass rod form contained excess electrons, not a deficiency of the positively charged fluid. Therefore, HE was the one who started the convention of calling electrons positive.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.196\|173.245.52.196]] 03:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)		Up until Franklin's experiments with electricity, there was debate as to whether electricity came in two forms, vitreous, as in a glass rod rubbed with silk, and resinous, which other experiments before him was shown to be the one in the rubber rubbed with fur (or amber rubbed with fur, hence the name). Franklin felt there was a single "fluid" which flowed to produce an electric current. He felt that when an object such as the glass rod had an excess of this fluid, it was "positive", and when there was a deficiency of this fluid, the object was "negative". Current flow was the flow of a region of excess "fluid" to a region deficient in it. Unfortunately what actually flowed was electrons and the glass rod form contained excess electrons, not a deficiency of the positively charged fluid. Therefore, HE was the one who started the convention of calling electrons positive.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.196\|173.245.52.196]] 03:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
−	:What we need here is a time machine so we won't waste too much time arguing.	+
		+	:What we need here is a time machine so we won't waste too much time arguing. {{unsigned\|Weatherlawyer}}