![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone heard of this before? It makes somewhat outlandish claims, but they are referenced to non-insane people such as Louis de Broglie and others. It could be a historical theory, but it seems to flirt with the "could still be possible" a little too much for my liking if this is indeed a historical theory. Haven't read the article in details however, so I might be either too generous or too harsh. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)), which mentions Fock in the abstract, who is mentioned in the article (abstract
here). Jordan is also mentioned in this abstract and both Fock and Jordan appear to have previously published related articles in Nature. Hope this helps. ----
Steve Quinn (
talk)
09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wrote a stub on
metadynamics. Anyone interested in helping is welcome!
--
Cyclopia
talk
15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at my request about the removal of a certain weblink? It seems, that discussion page is not a very busy one. Thank you, -- Superbass ( talk) 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that Portal:Star has been renominated for featured status. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Indiscriminate reverts, blatant PoV pushing and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, but without a formal violation of WP:3R. What to do? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Below is a request from an individual, regarding the Electromagnetism template, orginally placed at Template talk:Electromagnetism. I decided to copy it here. I figured more eyes could see it here: ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way of making this thing narrower? On a small laptop screen it takes up a lot of space, and displaces pictures from the top of the page. There seems to be scope for narrowing, given the wide margin either side of the image, and the wide gap in the text. -- catslash ( talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that HJ Rabal and RA Braga, authors of Dynamic Laser Speckle and Applications ( ISBN 9781420060157) wrote parts of dynamic speckle back in April. Things looked fine to me however, so I think it would be nice if we could get these two authors to write more on Wikipedia. I know our optics article could use the attention. Opinions? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has been substantially revised by Bbbl67 ( talk · contribs), who as near as I can tell (from this editing pass) is trying to emphasize non-mainstream views of dark matter (or at least paint the nature of dark matter as a controversial issue; actual emphasis is a somewhat subjective call on my part). For context, this is the same guy who's been adding links to the Dark fluid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (which as far as I can tell is one group's pet project, based on that article's references).
A couple of other editors have stepped in, and there's a bit of talk page activity. Would other people from WT:AST and WT:PHYS be willing to take a look at the current state of the dark matter article? More eyes would probably help at this point. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that some of those could be merged into already existing articles, or perhaps renamed and refocused? Opinions? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we have Angular distance and Angular diameter distance and Angular diameter. I am proposing the first two be merged into the third. Discuss at:
Talk:Angular_diameter#Merge_discussion Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
To settle the endless flip-flopping of one phrase in the lede of antimatter, I've started a straw poll at Talk:Antimatter#Straw poll: positron vs anti-electron. Please review and comment. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A question to the self-appointed physics coordinator: Please explain to me the use of an unspecified reference to Alonso & Finn in Bohr magneton? Why this revert? / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The articles about the Einstein group and its inventor Mendel Sachs could do with some attention from someone familiar with unorthodox gravitational theories. r.e.b. ( talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP just modified some equations in the Feynman diagram article. ( IP edits) I lack the background to check if this is a legitimate correction, or subtle vandalism, so if someone could check, it would be nice. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody who knows about these things have a look at this? I can't decide whether it's genuine or psuedoscience or what (or even whether it's physics or biology). Ta, Chris ( talk) 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The same user has recently added a lengthy essay to ultimate fate of the universe (and its talk page). I've reverted, and left a note on their talk page, but this essay looks very familiar. If anyone's seen it before on-wiki, please flag the relevant edit, and I'll get the ball rolling on a sock-puppet investigation. Hopefully I'm just misremembering instead. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work. Short with only 2 references, one now as I removed one that linked to Ron Kurtus's www.school-for-champions.com website, hardly a reliable source for a scientific article. Dougweller ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a new journal (July 2010), and I just took a look at their articles (such as "On the discovery of the gluon" by P. Söding ( doi: 10.1140/epjh/e2010-00002-5) and by Thor's beard are they wonderful. Take a look at them, and just imagine the possibilities of expansion for our articles such as (in this case) three jet events or gluon). They list all the historical references we need to write our article, focus on explaining the concepts involved, how the concepts came to be, how they were verified, etc...
I know that I for one will try to milk as much information as I can from these articles. Hell, I might even personally subscribed to this journal if I can afford it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
These are old (2007) orphans. Surely there are lists where we could redirect these two pages, or something similar? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have concerns about narrow agendas that some editors may be pushing from within the halls of academia. I would be grateful for advice here. Tony (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.
This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article World Crystal could perhaps use some attention. I'm not sure about how credible this article is. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww ( talk), Tim Vickers ( talk), Coren ( talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:
There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:
Article | EoHT article | Deletion #1 | Deletion #2 | Desired neutral article |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human molecule | ( human molecule) | AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) | Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010) |
What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.
My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:
It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this: it reads like a fragment of a proper article but a read of the references and a search on the name Peter Lindemann which turns up Adams motor, i.e. perpetual motion/free energy, so fringe. This should be clearer, it may even be this is covered properly elsewhere so it could be merged, or maybe it just needs to be deleted as non-notable (though I think there's no problem with having obscure fringe theories on WP as long as it's clear that's what they are).-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A user at List of unsolved problems in physics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly re-inserting a reference to cyclic universe. This was removed by two editors on the grounds that it's already covered by Big Bounce. If one or two uninvolved editors could skim the article and make a decision about whether or not it should get its own entry, that would be appreciated, as a 2:1 disagreement isn't enough for me to make an ironclad case for the user breaking consensus. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the shorthand notation for the alpha and beta decay? For fusion reactions it is aA(bB,xn)a+b-xC. Is there something similar for simple decays? Nergaal ( talk) 04:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph in Pauli exclusion principle#Stability of matter fails in explaining anything. I have some educated guesses, but there is some expert input needed. Please read discussion. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Anyone heard of this before? It makes somewhat outlandish claims, but they are referenced to non-insane people such as Louis de Broglie and others. It could be a historical theory, but it seems to flirt with the "could still be possible" a little too much for my liking if this is indeed a historical theory. Haven't read the article in details however, so I might be either too generous or too harsh. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)), which mentions Fock in the abstract, who is mentioned in the article (abstract
here). Jordan is also mentioned in this abstract and both Fock and Jordan appear to have previously published related articles in Nature. Hope this helps. ----
Steve Quinn (
talk)
09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just wrote a stub on
metadynamics. Anyone interested in helping is welcome!
--
Cyclopia
talk
15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at my request about the removal of a certain weblink? It seems, that discussion page is not a very busy one. Thank you, -- Superbass ( talk) 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that Portal:Star has been renominated for featured status. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Indiscriminate reverts, blatant PoV pushing and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, but without a formal violation of WP:3R. What to do? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Below is a request from an individual, regarding the Electromagnetism template, orginally placed at Template talk:Electromagnetism. I decided to copy it here. I figured more eyes could see it here: ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way of making this thing narrower? On a small laptop screen it takes up a lot of space, and displaces pictures from the top of the page. There seems to be scope for narrowing, given the wide margin either side of the image, and the wide gap in the text. -- catslash ( talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that HJ Rabal and RA Braga, authors of Dynamic Laser Speckle and Applications ( ISBN 9781420060157) wrote parts of dynamic speckle back in April. Things looked fine to me however, so I think it would be nice if we could get these two authors to write more on Wikipedia. I know our optics article could use the attention. Opinions? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has been substantially revised by Bbbl67 ( talk · contribs), who as near as I can tell (from this editing pass) is trying to emphasize non-mainstream views of dark matter (or at least paint the nature of dark matter as a controversial issue; actual emphasis is a somewhat subjective call on my part). For context, this is the same guy who's been adding links to the Dark fluid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (which as far as I can tell is one group's pet project, based on that article's references).
A couple of other editors have stepped in, and there's a bit of talk page activity. Would other people from WT:AST and WT:PHYS be willing to take a look at the current state of the dark matter article? More eyes would probably help at this point. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that some of those could be merged into already existing articles, or perhaps renamed and refocused? Opinions? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we have Angular distance and Angular diameter distance and Angular diameter. I am proposing the first two be merged into the third. Discuss at:
Talk:Angular_diameter#Merge_discussion Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
To settle the endless flip-flopping of one phrase in the lede of antimatter, I've started a straw poll at Talk:Antimatter#Straw poll: positron vs anti-electron. Please review and comment. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A question to the self-appointed physics coordinator: Please explain to me the use of an unspecified reference to Alonso & Finn in Bohr magneton? Why this revert? / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The articles about the Einstein group and its inventor Mendel Sachs could do with some attention from someone familiar with unorthodox gravitational theories. r.e.b. ( talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
An IP just modified some equations in the Feynman diagram article. ( IP edits) I lack the background to check if this is a legitimate correction, or subtle vandalism, so if someone could check, it would be nice. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody who knows about these things have a look at this? I can't decide whether it's genuine or psuedoscience or what (or even whether it's physics or biology). Ta, Chris ( talk) 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The same user has recently added a lengthy essay to ultimate fate of the universe (and its talk page). I've reverted, and left a note on their talk page, but this essay looks very familiar. If anyone's seen it before on-wiki, please flag the relevant edit, and I'll get the ball rolling on a sock-puppet investigation. Hopefully I'm just misremembering instead. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Needs a lot of work. Short with only 2 references, one now as I removed one that linked to Ron Kurtus's www.school-for-champions.com website, hardly a reliable source for a scientific article. Dougweller ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a new journal (July 2010), and I just took a look at their articles (such as "On the discovery of the gluon" by P. Söding ( doi: 10.1140/epjh/e2010-00002-5) and by Thor's beard are they wonderful. Take a look at them, and just imagine the possibilities of expansion for our articles such as (in this case) three jet events or gluon). They list all the historical references we need to write our article, focus on explaining the concepts involved, how the concepts came to be, how they were verified, etc...
I know that I for one will try to milk as much information as I can from these articles. Hell, I might even personally subscribed to this journal if I can afford it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
These are old (2007) orphans. Surely there are lists where we could redirect these two pages, or something similar? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have concerns about narrow agendas that some editors may be pushing from within the halls of academia. I would be grateful for advice here. Tony (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.
This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl ( talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article World Crystal could perhaps use some attention. I'm not sure about how credible this article is. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww ( talk), Tim Vickers ( talk), Coren ( talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:
There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:
Article | EoHT article | Deletion #1 | Deletion #2 | Desired neutral article |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human molecule | ( human molecule) | AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) | Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010) |
What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.
My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:
It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this: it reads like a fragment of a proper article but a read of the references and a search on the name Peter Lindemann which turns up Adams motor, i.e. perpetual motion/free energy, so fringe. This should be clearer, it may even be this is covered properly elsewhere so it could be merged, or maybe it just needs to be deleted as non-notable (though I think there's no problem with having obscure fringe theories on WP as long as it's clear that's what they are).-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A user at List of unsolved problems in physics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly re-inserting a reference to cyclic universe. This was removed by two editors on the grounds that it's already covered by Big Bounce. If one or two uninvolved editors could skim the article and make a decision about whether or not it should get its own entry, that would be appreciated, as a 2:1 disagreement isn't enough for me to make an ironclad case for the user breaking consensus. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the shorthand notation for the alpha and beta decay? For fusion reactions it is aA(bB,xn)a+b-xC. Is there something similar for simple decays? Nergaal ( talk) 04:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph in Pauli exclusion principle#Stability of matter fails in explaining anything. I have some educated guesses, but there is some expert input needed. Please read discussion. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)