Talk:Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism

message: Should this be Parametrized instead of Parameterised ? A google search reveals that both are used (albeit 145 for the former, 11,200 for the latter). MP   (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused. Parameterized with three es and a z seems to be the most common spelling. The OED tells me that none of the others are acceptable. –Joke 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have edited some earlier versions of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, although I hope for the best.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To AJRobbins: What is the "x" in the n-th order approximation? JRSpriggs 08:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. I just thought it was confusing. AJRobbins (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: I'm in the process of expanding this into a full article. The expansion will be finished on about 5 Sep 2006. In the meantime, please don't edit. Mollwollfumble 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding into full article

message: Would someone knowledgeable comment on the spherically symmetric case, which parameters can be ignored, or other simplifications?  And, for example, it appears that for GR that 4Φ1 + 4Φ2 + 2Φ3 + 6Φ4 + O(ε³) must add exactly to 2U² but this is very non-obvious.  And if one had an alternate g00 for a symmetric metric, say either of the two common approximations g00 = -1/(1+U)^2 or g00 = -(1-U)^2, which parameters would these affect and by how much?  I.e. how much suffers by our common approximations?  Have we verified gravity that closely yet?  Also, I personally feel this article should be raised in priority.  Verification of gravity is a popular topic in the scientific press.  But no one can get beyond superficial press talk, in part because the criteria, i.e. the PPN, are not given accessible explanations.  Even Misner-Thorne-Wheeler text just says that calculating these is difficult and doesn't give, for example, ways to approximate the parameters.  At one time 1st order was fine, but now we need accessibility to at least 2nd order in the PPN that is widely understood.  Thanks.  Rlshuler (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The spherically symmetric case? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism. 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/20070613073754/http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
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) 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Based on an earlier, now-closed discussion at Talk:Gravitational field#Proposed merge of Non-Relativistic Gravitational Fields into Gravitational field, I propose merging Non-relativistic gravitational fields to this page on the grounds of overlap and short text. Thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal