Talk:Gravitation (book)

message: It would be good to add a reference to the original Physics Today review (if one exists). If anybody has access to a library, please look up the month/year, issue number, reviewer, etc. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics Today review 

message: To summarize the recent additions I have made to the article (here is the current version at the time of writing):
*about the book itself, particularly about 
**typography, someone reading may have an interest about the fonts used but not know the name of the sans serif font (it is not arial, but univers), 
**retaining and adding more on sign conventions 
**since it is stated the book covers much of GR, for neutrality we should include a topic which is not covered: gravitoelectromagnetism (linearized gravity is discussed in depth, including gravitational waves, but there isn't anything on GEM)  
*inserted quotations from other authors about their opinions of the book. I have tried to be neutral and balanced giving some with slightly negative/neutral thoughts, but as expected most are positive. More could be added. The quotations were in the citations, but I took them out so readers can see them instantly instead of hiding them in the references section, and blended them into prose and a new "criticism" section. A sample of other popular books which cite MTW are also given.
*added a "popular culture" section, since this book has a very nice example appearing in a recent film (Interstellar) which actually uses GR to make the special effects as realistic as possible, and one of the authors was a consultant for the film.
For those looking in the edit history confused about these two edits, which were chaos on my part, the explanation (not excuse) was that my computer was slowing down and it was agonizingly difficult to edit and I thought Foster & Nightingale had been removed but it hadn't, it was just in the wrong place. Anyway its sorted now.
It would be nice, if possible, to know about the editorial development, and the history of the book's creation and publication in general.
These changes qualify as encyclopedic, but just in case others object they can say so here. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of new edits, more to add 

message: I have reluctantly removed the citation from the lead, and put it into a separate section where editions, reprints, and translations into other languages can be described and listed. I did want it to stay near the beginning, either the lead or first section, but it will keep being removed and the edit wars will be ongoing. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Yet more annoying deletions have occurred from this edit onwards by the same/another IP who effectively owns this article, deleting things he/she does not find interesting or useful, but others may. I will not be adding them back. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the edit summaries.  If you still can't understand why these edits were necessary, try asking.  77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note This user has been blocked for similar behaviour on another article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more annoying deletions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gravitation (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202083527/http://www.sky-watch.com/books/misner1.html to http://www.sky-watch.com/books/misner1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is necessary to note in the article that in § 43.4, p.1192  "Fluctuations in geometry", and in § 44.2, p.1200, of readers are misleading.
Indeed, in the  book, by analogy with electrodynamics, the following formula (43.29) is obtained for the fluctuations of the gravitational potential:
:\Delta g\sim\frac{\ell_P}{L}
Here g is the gravitational potential, \ell_P=1.6\times 10^{-33} cm is the so-called Planck length, L is the  region of dimension.
However, the analogy of geometrodynamics with electrodynamics is erroneous (because of the equivalence principle). A detailed analysis shows (see T. Regge, Nuovo Cim. 7, 215 (1958). Gravitational fields and quantum mechanics) that the formula for the gravitational potential fluctuations should have the form:
:\Delta g\sim\frac{\ell^{\,2}_P}{L^2}
This formula also follows from the Bohr-Rosenfeld uncertainty relation (see   here, chapter 5, p.12):   \Delta g\Delta L^2\ge\ell^{\,2}_P.
178.120.10.65 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Sigh. There's been a slow-moving edit war occurring on this page for some time now. User:Nerd271 insists on keeping the section "Table of contents (2017 Edition)". This section is just a list of the table of contents, with zero editorial commentary or significance, and has almost no encyclopedic value. I informed them such a list should not be included per the Wikiproject guideline, but they remain unconvinced and continue to re-add the section. Pinging  who seemed to share my view last year. Sro23 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about the book, including its table of contents is a good idea. It is also useful for those thinking about whether or not they want to purchase the book (assuming it is not required for a course). Nerd271 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a shopping guide. Sro23 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not, but it is still an encyclopedia. So we are free to include any relevant information. This is only a table of contents. It contains no sections or subsections, only the chapters and appendices. By your reasoning, one might as well delete the whole page because any information about the book, from scope to reception, could appear in a shopping guide. Remember, Wikipedia can be used as a learning tool. It may not be the best, but it is highly accessible. So why not make it as useful as possible? Nerd271 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's great if people find Wikipedia useful as a teaching or learning tool, however the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not teach. I still fail to see the encyclopedic value of the section. Sro23 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a significant difference between presenting facts and teaching? Isn't one way to present facts about a book is to give its table of contents? Nerd271 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with the inclusion of the table of contents. It's not something we ordinarily include in an article about a book, and it's not very useful for our readers. You should not repeatedly reinsert content in an article over the objections of multiple people (it's called edit warring, and it's disruptive). Four people have objected: myself, Sro23, and the IPs 193.177.201.226 and 178.106.252.217. Please don't re-add it again unless you can get consensus to do so on the talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note the IP's are actually sockpuppets of banned user WP:BFKIP, so their objections don't count. But that's still 2 editors against inclusion versus 1 for. Sro23 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Struck comment by banned user Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Like I already said, in those diffs, we were reverting a banned user per WP:BMB. Sro23 (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent [[WP:OWN]]ership and slow motion edit warring 

message: Doesn't "widely adopted", "highly valued", and mentioning specific editions strike anyone else as being overly promotional?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is not promotional, it is just a simple statement of fact. Also the vandal is removing important information on how to cite the book. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IPs removing content appear to have a point