lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Massive gravity

message: Hello,
I noticed that the page doesn't mention Lorentz violating massive gravity. I think it would be interesting to have a section about it. Yet, it is a relatively wide subject, so comments and contributions would be welcome.
Thank you-Cosmichaloe (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorentz violating massive gravity 

message: The article says " gravitational waves obey a massive wave equation ".  This is unclear upon first reading. It sounds like it is a massive "wave equation", but isn't it actually a wave equation for massive particles? As it is written, "massive" is an adjective of "equation". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  May be unclear 

message: Please dumb it down for the rest of us. Gsm54321 (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  While I'm glad that someone decided to share the lit review from their PHD thesis, this article is vastly too technical for an encyclopedia entry
Talk:Bly, Oregon

message: About a year ago  added "Bly is best known for being the childhood home of Charles Barber, billionaire visionary and philanthropist", but did not add a supporting reference. I have removed this for the following reasons:
* there is no reference, and it seems only reasonable that (for a living person) we have a reliable source (even if the information isn't pejorative)
* I can find no evidence of this person in online searches; there appears to be no billionaire or philanthropist by that name, or no notable person associated with Bly
* Disinformation hasn't edited wikipedia since, and his name hardly fills one with confidence
If anyone has concrete, reliable sources that support the above claim, then naturally I'd be happy for this info to be in the article, but right now I fear it's a hoax. 87.114.33.205 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, I'm sorry I didn't notice the vandalism earlier. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work.  Thanks!  —EncMstr (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Barber
Talk:Nordtvedt effect

message: "Thus far, the results have failed to find any evidence of the Nordtvedt effect, demonstrating that if it exists, the effect is exceedingly weak."
:Can we quantify that?  How weak must it be (or if you prefer, how strong can it be) before conflicting with experiment? RJFJR 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be quantified, but it's a bit messy. Directly, the difference in acceleration between the Earth and the Moon in the Sun's gravity is no more than about 1 part in 10^13. But the whole idea is that the difference is due to the gravitational self-energy, which is a tiny fraction of the Earth's total mass - about 1 part in 10^9. So when you divide out to get the "Nordtvedt parameter" (η) you get a limit - gravitational self-energy falls differently from other mass by at most (about) one part in 10^3. There have been some tests with pulsars (one is in progress right now), where the self-energy is 10-15% of their mass, but things get more complicated when you're in this strong-field regime. Exact numbers and discussion are available in section 4.3.1 of this review. Anne (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantify

message: I propose to merge Nordtvedt effect into Free energy suppression conspiracy theory or Kenneth Nordtvedt.  ToddGrande (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: "In theoretical astrophysics, the Nordtvedt effect is the rejected hypothesis that relative motion between the Earth and the Moon which would be observed if the gravitational self-energy of a body contributed differently to its gravitational mass than to its inertial mass."
Something is missing: "is the rejected hypothesis that relative motion" what?
:The effect is the relative motion due the difference. I put the first sentence back to its original wording. Multiple revisions had left it confusing. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with the first sentence of the article.
Talk:Papapetrou–Dixon equations

message: Should we merge 
*Papapetrou–Dixon equations
*Mathisson–Papapetrou equations
*Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equations 
into one big article? They seem so similar. It seems the more common names are "Mathisson–Papapetrou" and "Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon", much more than "Papapetrou–Dixon". M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 14:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:Retarded position

message: I think this is wrong for gravity, as it says the acclerrating masses produce gravitational waves which is not the case. For gravity the whole thing seems to be moved up one order higher (the field accounting for velocity and acceleration of the moving source, not just velocity as is the case in electrodynamics) and gravitational waves are emitted when the quadrupole moment of the distribution varies. 95.112.39.250 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong for gravity
Talk:Synchronous coordinates

message: In the equation, everything after the "minus d t squared" is defined incompletely, if at all. I know SR pretty well, and I have no idea what "h" is or what and b represent, much less multiplying them all together in various combinations. All I can tell is that this is some kind of mutant bastard child of the Lorentz metric where h, a, and b grow out of it like a tumor. 67.162.165.126 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know it's just an article stub, but this is awful, horrible! 

message: The other article is more complete and I think the difference between a synchonous frame and synchronous coordinates is sufficiently small that one article that explains both would make more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.212.4 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Synchronous frame? 

message: I would suggest adding:  
  
Synchronous coordinates can be physically/experimentally interpreted as:  
 
Take any single coordinate point p(t,x,y,z) and two test particles a(s=0,t,x,y,z),b(s=0,t,x,y,z), s being the calibration of two identical clocks on the test particles, positioned at p(t,x,y,z) ; but with a,b having different velocities and subsequently following their respective geodesic paths.  
  
After proper time s for both a,b they will be at co-ordinates a(s,t+s,x',y',z'),b(s,t+s,x,y,z) ; where (x',y',z'),(x,y,z) are  the respectively spacelike position coordinates resulting from the individual geodesics paths.  
And no I am not able to prove this from the form of the metric yet; but would like a proof.
Ray
Rrogers314 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Including an additional s coordinate as calibration complicates things with the metric. For example, we can't be sure that after the 2 particles move to different points in the curved space, s and t+s will be the same for both. Lantonov (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: explicit experimental interpretation 

message: I am hesitating between the article being titled "Synchronous (reference) frame" and "Synchronous coordinates". The first one is used more often and is somewhat more precise. However, an average reader would tend to mix it with "Synchronous reference frame (SRF) theory" as used in electrical engineering to denote a frame that rotates at a synchronous speed with an application in 3-phase controls. Another possible solution is a disambiguation as "Synchronous reference frame (relativity)" and "Synchronous reference frame (electrical engineering)". Lantonov (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to "Synchronous coordinates" ?
Talk:Doll Graveyard

message: *Insert clean Infobox Film template.
*Include cast information from IMDb.  Cast information from IMDb is generally questionable for upcoming films, not already-released films.
*De-link any red wiki-links that indicate a lack of an article.
*Expand on the plot.
*Add any production information in a Production section, such as how the dolls were portrayed -- was it special effects, puppetry, animatronics?
Just some suggestions to build up this article. :) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improving the article

message: The tag was merely put up as some sort of "retaliation" by another user after I mistook his page for a nonsense/attack page. -WarthogDemon 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HangOn 

message: Exactly what the heck is this?  He's tagging this for deletion based on the fact he thinks the movie is rubbish? -WarthogDemon 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangon (Again)
Talk:Weyl scalar

message: In the section of the article with the heading "Physical Interpretation", there are 2 places where it says, "ingoing and ougoing".  Shouldn't these be CORRECTED, to say "incoming and outgoing"?  ((In particular, was this material translated from some other language, by someone who is not a native speaker of English?  or, otherwise written [or, edited] by someone who is not a native speaker of English?  just a hunch.))  The word "ingoing" might possibly be the right thing to say here [but I doubt it];  while "ougoing" appears to be a blatant [TYPO] misspelling of "outgoing".  Unless this branch of Physics has some words that are never seen [used] elsewhere...  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [TYPO] correction needed?
Template talk:First Nations in Alberta

message: I've recently created navboxes for First Nations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, so I'm making a few edits in order to have all (Western) Canadian FN navboxes match each other.
The basic hierarchical organization should be pretty versatile: it primarily uses the tribal council structure, but has space for unaffiliated and unrecognized nations too. The ethnolinguistic/ethnocultural group section is more debatable. Here's the rules I'm holding myself to:
* I'm eliminating endonym/exonym distinctions because, although the motivations behind this bilingualism are certainly admirable, it puts a lot of exonyms on display which are no longer even current in the English language. I think a single name should be displayed for each nation, aggressively defaulting to the endonym unless there exists an exonym which is a) significantly more recognizable in everyday use and b) generally used in English-language materials by the specific nation in question. (For instance "Cree" passes this test.)
* Because the bulk of the navbox is dedicated to contemporary tribal governments and organizations, I'm thinning out nations which are no longer present in Alberta's territory, but still exist elsewhere. This removes some historical perspective, but I believe it magnifies the impact of the rest of the wikibox, which should be structured in a way which demonstrates that First Nations are relevant to the life of Alberta as we know it today.
Let me know if you have any thoughts about this, making these decisions right is important for the task of getting Canadian FN templates into shape.
Awmcphee (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial First Nations harmonization
Talk:Havelock

message: What about Havelock -- a white kepi cover with a long tail draping over the wear's neck and shoulders, the havelock was named for Sir Henry Havelock, the British military man who made it popular in India in the 1850s. Considered smart martial apparel in hot climates, it was worn early in the Civil War by Northerners and Southerners to ward off sunstroke. The havelock was eliminated from uniform requisitions when American found that it cut off air circulation around the head and face.
?
:Didn't French legionaries use similar headgear in Africa? Drutt (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Benedict–Webb–Rubin equation

message: There's a problem with the formula I believe... Gas density simply does not come into it as far as I can tell but rather the unit volume per mole... Theclem54 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

message: The equation cannot be correct in this form because it violates the simplest rules of unit conformity. Already the first term ρRT has got the unit Jkg/m³mol, and this is utterly not a pressure. However, this incongruity can easily be made vanish by replacing any mass density ρ by the concentration ρ/μ.--Slow Phil (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit conflict 

message: This article is very unappealing, but I do not know how to fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.135.66 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at it, including some context and upgrading to standard wiki citation standards.  Added a few extra references.  At least the Jacobson article (all 100+ pages) is free online at NIST.  No doubt it will give information that will help straighten out the possible confusion with equations commented on earlier.    J JMesserly (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Formatting
Talk:Blade element theory

message: You break the blade down into (spanwise) small segments so that you can analyze forces and moments as you would an (2D) airfoil. You don't break down the airfoil.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You don't break the airfoil down 

message: Hello,
Does it makes sense to import complete chapters on BET from free technical book with Public Domain Mark 1.0?
Here's how it looks like in Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marino108LFS
Thank you,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino108LFS (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Incorporation
Talk:Critical angle of attack

message: In Angle of attack I have created a Level 2 Headline titled "Critical angle of attack".  I have transferred the text from Critical angle of attack to Angle of attack.  I have also rectified all the Wikilinks that previously directed to Critical angle of attack so they now direct to the Level 2 Headline of that title in Angle of attack  Dolphin51 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Direct numerical simulation

message: I was attempting to understand the basic differences between DNS and LES in the simulation of turbulence and fluid instabilities.  The page on LES is very clear about these comparisons, and I liked it a lot.  However, this page on DNS dives almost immediately into implementation equations, really muddying the waters for me.  I'm wondering if the detailed equations could be moved into a "mathematics" section, with summary prose preceding it.  Thoughts? SeanAhern 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification/reorganization 

message: The derivation of the Kolmogorov scale assumes 3D, but no where is this mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.35.194 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumptions Not State 

message: This article is a direct copy from the cfd-wiki, which is even included as a link at the end of the page. Neither this article nor the one it copies cites any sources. I add the more citations needed template. Osmanthus22 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct copy from cfd-wiki
Talk:Canadian wine

message: I just think it's surprising and amusing that the German article is much bigger and appears more complete than this one. Anybody can/feels like translating some of it?--Boffob 17:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody knows German? 

message: There is brief mention but I think more should be expounded on this subject. This might lead to some details about Canada's large home-winemaking craze. Agne 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian wine tax and tariffs 

message: Canadaian History Wine  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.228.223 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  canadian history wine  

message: I've seen in other countries' entries that they breakdown each region (sub-regions sometimes) and explain the types of wines, grapes, climate and key vineyards.
It would be interesting to see a similar breakdown on the Canadian wiki entry.
At minimum, some of the vineyards could link to the wiki entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldshem (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine Producing Regions in Canada 
Talk:Go, Diego, Go!

message: Why is this show not refered as was when Nick hasn't made new epiodes for the show for 8 years! Reruns of many shows are aired all time on tv but are refered to canceled. The reader of the world! (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: No new epsodes in 8 years but is refered to as is

message: As my title says, the article describes characters and objects multiple times, and the grammar is atrocious. Far too jumbled to tackle on my phone, I'm afraid. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive and poorly written 

message: Alicia is the only character in the series who have Green Eyes while Diego, Dora and their families have brown eyes. Alicia is the worst character in the Dora franchise and she's a ripoff of Boots. 2600:4040:7270:9800:548C:54FB:D30A:7FEB (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a place for personal opinions. 2600:1006:B027:2F3F:B1D1:5F29:FBB4:7B11 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alicia is the feminine version of Boots 
Talk:Hiram T. Smith

message: This article refers to a true story told for generations in Maine, and the marker in Maine is well known among locals.  The Aroostook war is the only time in US history governor declared war on a country, and many consider Private Smith the 'only' casualty of the war.  Private Smith is a part of history in Maine, and of the US asserting its young government.
:He gets 32 google hits. Number 2 is this page. Not notable. -Amarkov babble 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally wouldn't solely rely on google hits, except for two problems. One, with your criteria, including the middle initial, which any good source would have, there are only THIRTEEN google hits. And two, this seems to be of no importance at all other than where you live. -Amarkov babble 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Aroostook War covers everything important in the article. Add the information there. -Amarkov babble 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've done my research, and you are indeed correct. I still think this guy doesn't need his own article, but I'm not going to put any effort into it. -Amarkov babble 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How is it possible a man said to have died in 1828 is a casualty of a war Wikipedia itself doesn't say began until 1838? —Andrew.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.211.154 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Johannisthal air disaster

message: This is a direct quote from the article..."The only man found alive was Lieut. Baron von Bieul, a guest on the trip, who was fatally injured." This is rather misleading. If he was found alive, did he later succumb to his wounds? Please make this more clear. FaerieDana (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life or death?
Talk:Kalliroscope

message: Kalliroscope appears to be a tradename for crystalline Guanine made by the Kalliroscope corporation, whose President is Paul Matisse. Not clear to me at all that it counts as an "art technique" any more than "paint" is an art technique. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art device or product?
Talk:Kaye effect

message: I'm new at this so please forgive me if I'm not doing things correctly. I assure everyone that I have verified everything that I briefly discuss below.
The Wikipedia article on the "Kaye Effect" is almost completely false.
The fluid dynamics begin at the atomic level because what so-called "atoms" physically are is "Universal Extreme Fluid" (UEF) 'contained within' surrounding UEF because, during some creation violence, 'local c' was exceeded and more UEF was 'contained within' a spherical volume than could escape the surface area of that volume as the creation violence rapidly subsides and 'local c' returns to 'average local c'.
What the so-called "Kaye Effect" physically is is a macroscopic version of the same UEF 'containing' UEF that occurs at the atomic level.
Depending on the viscosity of the fluid, the poured stream builds up a mound on the surface of the receiving fluid because the fluid's 'local c' is decreased an amount that's correlated to the fluid's viscosity, and that 'local c' decrease is what physicallly underpins everything that is involved in the formation and 'sustenance' of every 'ejectile' stream that will be formed.
Because when the fluid cannot 'get out of its own way', the surface of the fluid 'hardens' to fluid-additions, which leaves the only direction in which the poured stream can move being away from the surface of the receiving fluid, with the previously instantiated surface fluid 'mound's 'instantaneous' geometry determining 'the' angle at which the ejectile stream will be directed.
Which is exactly the same thing that occurs in "emission" dynamics at the atomic level, for the same 'local c' variation reason.
Forgive me, please, but I have verified the above with respect to all known experimental results, can provide this verification to anyone and everyone, and have rewritten all of Physics accordingly.
So, although my colleagues in Physics will be 'skeptical', they can only be 'skeptical' with respect to that which stands verified to be True.
I would like very much to write a Wiki on the larger set of dynamics.
My email address is kpcollins1910@gmail.com.
K. P. Collins, author of Tapered Harmony, which is a TOE verivied at all scales, infinitely-small to infinitely-large.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.228.7 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Lamb–Oseen vortex

message: People 'unfamiliar with the subject' hardly look for Lamb-Oseen vortex by themselves, therefore I doubt the tag is useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.235.2 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good introduction 

message: Core size should be square root of (4*nu*t), I don't know how to type "square root" though. I also changed the velocity profile because it was wrong before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangxujing (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  core size definition is wrong 

message: A figure displaying the velocity flow field would be helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.209.201 (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot 

message: The English grammar of this article needs fixing by a native speaker, but although I am a professional editor, I know nothing about the topic, and so am reluctant to make any more changes than the two I have already made, for fear of inadvertently changing the meaning. It would be useful if a native-speaking mathematician could tidy up a little. Not a criticism of the contributors, at least some of whom were working in a language that was not their own! UrsusMaximus (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar