![]() | 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. |
does it belong to physics ?-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 18:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Energy Catalyzer is a device claimed by its inventors to produce power by low-energy nuclear reaction, apparently shortly to go into production (!). It might be worthwhile for contributors with knowledge of the relevant physics to take a look at the article (and the talk page), as it seems to me to be rather unbalanced for such a fringe topic - the problem seems to be that it is only being reported by supporting media, while the mainstream ignores it - possibly on the basis that it seems more likely to be a hoax than the genuine article. This does however result in the relatively few sources we do have being given undue prominence - if anyone can find comment on the 'catalyzer' from new mainstream sources, that would undoubtedly be useful too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has recently appeared at Talk:Special relativity writing about their personal proof of SR being incorrect. So far, nothing unusual. What is unusual is that Balslev ( talk · contribs)'s only two edits to that talk page, and that he not only has a flawless grasp of wiki markup but has also uploaded a diagram to Wikimedia Commons to explain his argument (his only edit at the commons).
This means he's a problem-user returning under a new name. What was his old name, so that I can file a report at WP:SPI and resolve things? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You might want to pay attention to Gamma-ray burst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has been edited by User:Sehmeet singh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the primary author of GRB 090429B, who has repeatedly inserted mentions of it as the most distant object in the universe into the GRB article (not true, there's a z>10 galaxy that was announced a few months ago, which we have an article on). On recent edits [1] he's been using questionable quality references, and poorly cited references to support rewriting the article. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Table_summarizing_origins_of_elements.3F for questions about possible new article. - Noleander ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this is of interest: calculations appear to show that quarks existed independently during a fraction of second after the big bang. It appears that at 2 trillion Kelvin quarks "can break free from their confinement inside protons and neutrons". Physics World. Derived from AAAS Science v. 332. p. 1525. and free preprint version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn ( talk • contribs) on 03:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Blaise Pascal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the problem has been solved. It has something to do with thermal emissions.
Negativecharge ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
any idea on how to link all the talk pages of all the languages on physics ?-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievably, someone recently proposed Nathan Seiberg for deletion, on the grounds that the subject was of limited notability, and that the article was lacking references (not exactly true, since it did link to his homepage—but this isn't a very good source). Apparently, there is a policy to delete BLPs that are unreferenced if they were created after March 2010 (but this article was created years prior to that, so it seems to me that this policy was not being correctly invoked.) I have removed the prod and added a reference, but it might be worth it for project members to monitor the article. It could use some help. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are physics-related.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. I'll be cross-posting the relevant sections to WP:Astronomy and WP:Geology as well. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just posted a thread at WT:WPMATH about the naming of this category; then on the cat talkpage, I see that the ownership is actually claimed by this wikiproject.
So, to repeat what I've just written over there:
At the moment Category:Rotational symmetry carries a rubric saying that it is specifically for three-dimensional spherical symmetry.
Follow-ups probably best to the thread at WT:WPMATH, to keep further discussion in one place. Jheald ( talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There's been some recent edit at tachyons which I think ought to be vetted. I lack the background to decide if they make sense or not. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:56, 27 July 2011 (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. |
does it belong to physics ?-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 18:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Energy Catalyzer is a device claimed by its inventors to produce power by low-energy nuclear reaction, apparently shortly to go into production (!). It might be worthwhile for contributors with knowledge of the relevant physics to take a look at the article (and the talk page), as it seems to me to be rather unbalanced for such a fringe topic - the problem seems to be that it is only being reported by supporting media, while the mainstream ignores it - possibly on the basis that it seems more likely to be a hoax than the genuine article. This does however result in the relatively few sources we do have being given undue prominence - if anyone can find comment on the 'catalyzer' from new mainstream sources, that would undoubtedly be useful too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
An editor has recently appeared at Talk:Special relativity writing about their personal proof of SR being incorrect. So far, nothing unusual. What is unusual is that Balslev ( talk · contribs)'s only two edits to that talk page, and that he not only has a flawless grasp of wiki markup but has also uploaded a diagram to Wikimedia Commons to explain his argument (his only edit at the commons).
This means he's a problem-user returning under a new name. What was his old name, so that I can file a report at WP:SPI and resolve things? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You might want to pay attention to Gamma-ray burst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has been edited by User:Sehmeet singh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the primary author of GRB 090429B, who has repeatedly inserted mentions of it as the most distant object in the universe into the GRB article (not true, there's a z>10 galaxy that was announced a few months ago, which we have an article on). On recent edits [1] he's been using questionable quality references, and poorly cited references to support rewriting the article. 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Table_summarizing_origins_of_elements.3F for questions about possible new article. - Noleander ( talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this is of interest: calculations appear to show that quarks existed independently during a fraction of second after the big bang. It appears that at 2 trillion Kelvin quarks "can break free from their confinement inside protons and neutrons". Physics World. Derived from AAAS Science v. 332. p. 1525. and free preprint version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn ( talk • contribs) on 03:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Blaise Pascal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- NortyNort (Holla) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the problem has been solved. It has something to do with thermal emissions.
Negativecharge ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
any idea on how to link all the talk pages of all the languages on physics ?-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievably, someone recently proposed Nathan Seiberg for deletion, on the grounds that the subject was of limited notability, and that the article was lacking references (not exactly true, since it did link to his homepage—but this isn't a very good source). Apparently, there is a policy to delete BLPs that are unreferenced if they were created after March 2010 (but this article was created years prior to that, so it seems to me that this policy was not being correctly invoked.) I have removed the prod and added a reference, but it might be worth it for project members to monitor the article. It could use some help. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are physics-related.
If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. I'll be cross-posting the relevant sections to WP:Astronomy and WP:Geology as well. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just posted a thread at WT:WPMATH about the naming of this category; then on the cat talkpage, I see that the ownership is actually claimed by this wikiproject.
So, to repeat what I've just written over there:
At the moment Category:Rotational symmetry carries a rubric saying that it is specifically for three-dimensional spherical symmetry.
Follow-ups probably best to the thread at WT:WPMATH, to keep further discussion in one place. Jheald ( talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There's been some recent edit at tachyons which I think ought to be vetted. I lack the background to decide if they make sense or not. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)