This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Faster-than-light article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article. If you have science questions, please ask them here, at the reference desk instead. |
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
After this edit there has been a minor skirmish, with me agreeing with the IP. I don't know if I have the same rationale as the IP who originally added the single word "cosmologist" - I don't quite understand the edit summary - but I feel the word is an improvement for the general reader.
The last edit as of this writing was by Headbomb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary " we don't do that for any other person here, e.g. Martin Rees and others".
That's an "other stuff exists" argument (or, "other stuff doesn't exist" :) ). And I think we should do that for other persons. It is good that there's a reference to a paper for this particular claim, but that isn't the first appearance of the person's name.
Remember, Wikipedia is written for the general reader, and the rationale "the reader can always click the link to the person's article" is a weak justification for omitting one lousy word. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that the general reader should have recently taken a "History of Cosmology and Mathematical Physics" course. Jeh ( talk) 14:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Here, not perfect, but better. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Roger Penrose uses general relativity which is superluminally wrong for predictions about action (action as defined in physics; see: Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc).
Relativistically, afar regions CAN recede superluminally.
In small regions no object can move superluminally. All of it's particles decay into others, and only energy BUT NO INFORMATION can travel/be emitted faster than light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:CEAB:CCF2:2E68:D845:51D2 ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The cool GIF Tachyon04s.gif is captioned as
But what is the justification for this description. Indeed what is the justification for the image at all? Well other than being colorful? Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Faster-than-light article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article. If you have science questions, please ask them here, at the reference desk instead. |
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
After this edit there has been a minor skirmish, with me agreeing with the IP. I don't know if I have the same rationale as the IP who originally added the single word "cosmologist" - I don't quite understand the edit summary - but I feel the word is an improvement for the general reader.
The last edit as of this writing was by Headbomb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary " we don't do that for any other person here, e.g. Martin Rees and others".
That's an "other stuff exists" argument (or, "other stuff doesn't exist" :) ). And I think we should do that for other persons. It is good that there's a reference to a paper for this particular claim, but that isn't the first appearance of the person's name.
Remember, Wikipedia is written for the general reader, and the rationale "the reader can always click the link to the person's article" is a weak justification for omitting one lousy word. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that the general reader should have recently taken a "History of Cosmology and Mathematical Physics" course. Jeh ( talk) 14:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Here, not perfect, but better. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Roger Penrose uses general relativity which is superluminally wrong for predictions about action (action as defined in physics; see: Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc).
Relativistically, afar regions CAN recede superluminally.
In small regions no object can move superluminally. All of it's particles decay into others, and only energy BUT NO INFORMATION can travel/be emitted faster than light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:CEAB:CCF2:2E68:D845:51D2 ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The cool GIF Tachyon04s.gif is captioned as
But what is the justification for this description. Indeed what is the justification for the image at all? Well other than being colorful? Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)