Talk:Outline of physics

message: How come there was no item for medical physics in the list yet? It's such a big and important branch of Physics - and one that is a lot closer to "regular" people than most.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmneto (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Physics

message: The following two sections are copied here from the Talk:Physics sections of Physics Education: the issue is that the YouTube links ought to be integrated more fully into a wikipedia article, such as List of basic physics topics. With a little more formatting the YouTube links can be cast into a more integrated part of this article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: See the proposal at the Village pump
The Transhumanist 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to 

message: Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Wikipedia:Outlines.
Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.
The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for outlines 

message: Please add some relevant links to the history section.
Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates.  Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.
The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "History of" section needs links! 

message: Nikola Tesla was not a physicist, and he certainly didn't expand nuclear physics.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to electromagnetism as that is what he is known for. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikola Tesla 

message: While I do not know whether the following is true:
 Physics started with a philosophical commitment to simplicity.
One should add (in better words than mine) that simplicity became of secondary criteria to completeness. While many approximations used by physics are still simple, many underpinnings (not the deepness) are not. For example, Wave–particle duality, Maxwell's equations uniting light, electrical charge and magnetism, Schrödinger equation, physical interpretation of imaginary numbers, Length contraction, etc.
The rational for my argument is with the problem of using Occam's razor which is misinterpreted as simplicity first (it isn't). A more complex theory that explains more phenomena is not admissible to the razor. Simplicity is only a criteria when two theories give the same results and accuracy. Specifically because of this problem, Einstein formulated his "but no simpler" razor. See Models of scientific inquiry and q:Albert Einstein. Technically while Einstein's razor is a subset of Occam's, in usage, Einstein's razor is a caution against overuse of simplicity.
I can understand the need to make Physics approachable to all, but please don't oversimplify or oversell.
Dpleibovitz (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered at Wikipedia:Outlines re: the whole list lead should be deleted since it reads as unreferenced opinion and be replaced by a shorter form of the lead paragraph at Physics. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have truncated out the lead because WP:LIST leads should define the list, they are not there to instruct, or promote a topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplicity? 

message: "Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation.  The Transhumanist 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines 

message: I have a VERY unique, highly advanced epistemology based on my life's most passionate desire and primary life goal. As concisely as I can define it, it is simply, "To Know WHY we (people) must be here (Earth bound)", and What exactly is the purpose, goal, function of human life as it is perceptually experienced. 
My life's research had no boundaries, limitations, or restrictions in acquiring information, historical data, regardless of time, religions, schools of thought, race, geographic region, beliefs, socially acceptable or condemned mores, values, tenets, rituals, and such.  All thoughts conceived, regardless of education, experience, wisdom, ignorance, IQ, parentage, environmental impacts, physical and mental status, philosophies both ancient and recent, world cultures, rare historical knowledge acquired over 40 years, specifically Christian history, pre-Christ and after His death, political and religious truths and the unfathomable depths of corrupt reasoning, acts, and formal deceitful documentation...
Nothing was overlooked, including myths, lore, legends, mystical, insights, intuitions, dreams. Over 40 years, I have the most sought after answers in the field of quantum physics which I only need to publish; with the information made available for anyone to read, I leave the scientific community to convert text-based formulas into mathematical and scientific formulas (for the purpose of making otherwise nonsensical assumptions understood in simplest form). 
I know what dark matter and energy is. I know why the properties and laws governing the visible world don't apply to the sub-atomic world.  I know EXACTLY what the sub-atomic world's purpose, function and the nature of the laws governing it are, as well as it's relationship to the visible world, and that which falls "in-between" the two, which has never even been conceived by man, let alone perceptually understood. 
I know, KNOW, much more, even, not limiting my obsessive research to understand why we need to be humans, and why Earth is the perfect "classroom" to fulfill the goal of every human being.  Science can only provide answers as it evolves over time to the physical realm of mass, and all that includes. Science has no authority, and no right to expound on anything beyond tangible means of measuring material elements of a 3-D manifested plane of existence. 
But, one day, some of what I hope to publish before I die will eventually lead to a completely compatible, co-dependent relationship between the two AND what falls in-between. 
Discussion topic requested:  create a section for user-submitted theoretical proposals that rely on factual, historical, well documented sources in every area lacking that which would create a unified, complete eternal construct of an entire field of study.  
An Academic Paper originally started on Academia.edu, by Renee M. Wenker 
JoySLeigh (talk)JoySLeighJoySLeigh (talk) JoySLeigh (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Answer to TOE: A Theoretical Proposal for Quantum Physicists Scientific Review & Consideration 

message: I have removed that section since it is an undefined list with no inclusion criteria per WP:LEADFORALIST, and a dumping ground for anyone to post their favorite physicist (hey, everyone in Wikipedia is "Famous"). I see no reason to include the list but maybe someone else can come up with a rational. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous physicists?