Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 8

message: The event horizon article was recently rewritten. An anon has voiced concerns about it. Just to make sure it's correct, could a few of the GR-types here please take a look at it, and comment on the talk page? --Christopher Thomas 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon is still present and still making objections. My math isn't good enough to tell for certain whether or not he has a point (though I'm pretty sure he's mistaken, and the article did get a vote of confidence from the other editors reviewing it). I know there are GR types here. Could a couple of you please take a quick look at event horizon and talk:event horizon? --Christopher Thomas 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't immediately tell what objection you're referring to, by skimming the talk page.  Is it "Infinite tidal forces simply do not exist at the S R location"?  Tidal forces do indeed approach infinity as you approach the singularity (they go as 1/R^4), but nothing in the article is about the singularity.  The article is about the horizon, so I can't figure out what the complaint actually is.  Also, I am baffled by this initialism SR.  What does it stand for?  Usually in relativity, SR means special relativity, but clearly here it refers to some feature of black holes.  What is it? -lethe talk [ +] 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schwarzchild radius, I guess.  You're right it should be explicit.  --Michael C. Price talk 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the article should be explicit, but it's OK for people to use jargon on the talk page.  I've just never seen this initialism before.  OK, SR means horizon.  I don't like it, it seems to limit us to horizons nonrotating uncharged static classical black holes (the Schwarzschild solution), but at least now I know what anon is saying.  Thank you, Michael, for cluing me in. -lethe talk [ +] 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The anon thinks I'm claiming infinite tidal forces in the article. I'm not, and have made this clear numerous times. I _do_ claim that a rigid rod that is stationary with respect to a distant observer that is placed through the horizon would experience infinite tensile forces (in addition to falling apart because photons couldn't propagate between all parts of it). The anon disagrees. It's possible that I'm mistaken, but I trust the GR crew here more than I trust an anon. --Christopher Thomas 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're looking for backup on this assertion, for example: the boosting force to keep your rocket ship stationary (with respect to asymptotic Minkowski space) approaches infinity as you approach the horizon.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is correct. -lethe talk [ +] 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lethe is right, I beleive. The anon seems to be saying that, in the reference frame of the person holding the rigid rod, the rod would not be long enough to actually cross the event horizon. Err.. indeed this is confusing. Basically, the anon is claiming that, if I unreeled a very very long spool of "steel tape" (ruler) down towards the event horizon, the tip of the ruler would never actually cross!? In the frame of a distant observer, the rules on the ruler would appear to get more and more compressed as the tip approached the SR (swar. rad). From the point of view of an obsrever hanging from the end of the ruler, the SR appears to "very far away". I think anon might be right, because that's how I remember it being taught in school. So maybe everyone is right? Although the forces would get infinite for the person hanging off the end of the ruler, fortunately, the person hanging off the end of the ruler can never get near enough to the SR to feel those "infinite forces". The closer he tried to get, the farther away the SR would get, the greater the forces would get, but he'd never actually get there. He'd have to "let go" and fall in order to fall in; but, while falling the forces would no longer be actualy infinite. The infinity is "potential" not "real", the falling observer does not feel infinite tensile forces. Only the rocket ship attempting to stay away from SR exteriences the need for more and more and more thrust, and unbounded amount of thrust, to keep at a safe distance.  linas 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I.E. there is no actual infinity, because either the ruler breaks and falls in (and feels no infinite force on crossing the SR), or the ruler is infinitely strong, in which case the unwary holder of the ruler will eventually feel a force that overwhelms his grip/ his rocket engines, and will have to cut the ruler free and let it fall. At no point does the ruler experience infinite force (before contact with the essential singularity). At no point does the non-falling ruler ever actually cross the SR, and a non-falling ruller can never be made long enough to cross the SR, because, in the non-moving ruler's reference frame, the SR is infinitely far away. linas 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled by your (apparent?) statement that the ruler does have to be infinitely strong, but that the force is finite. That the non-moving ruler measures the horizon as infinitely far away is more reasonable, but that would lead to force on the ruler tending towards infinity as you integrated force along its (infinite) length, unless something strange was going on. This also seems to say that the situation where a non-falling ruler exists that crosses the horizon from the viewpoint of a distant observer can't be constructed/described, which seems odd to me. To see why I'm confused about this, consider the related situation of a rigid rod that, from the distant stationary observer's viewpoint, appears be stationary and to connect the distant observer to the singularity, and spell out to me how the rod is described in the various relevant regions. I'm really wishing my math was good enough to see all of the implications involved directly, as this really seems to be a coordinate systems issue more than anything else. --Christopher Thomas 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would the dude hanging off the end see the horizon as far away?  I think you should be able to lower him right up to it (assuming infinite tensile strength). -lethe talk [ +] 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the hanging dude is radially contracted he sees the horizon as infinitely distant.  --Michael C. Price talk 06:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently I haven't made the scenario I'm trying to discuss clear enough. I'm looking at the _limit_ as tensile strength of the line approaches infinity, and the rate of initial lowering approaches zero, and so on and so forth, of the forces required to maintain the scenario described. Stating that the line snaps, rod breaks, or what-have-you violates the constraints of the question. As far as I can tell, for nonzero cable mass-per-unit-length, the tensile force on the cable tends towards infinity (with a description that was different from my original picture). Per discussion on talk:event horizon, we mainly seem to be arguing about terminology, and it's moot point anyways because I'm satisfied with your rewrite of the section involved. --Christopher Thomas 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Event horizon rewrite

message: A proposal to merge Scalar has turned into a protracted discussion of whether or not the term 'scalar' means the same thing in different disciplines.  See Talk:Scalar. --Smack (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scalars 

message: Anybody feel up to tackling Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness and making it into something encyclopedic, if that is even possible?  Anville 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is possible. It should most likeley be deleted. --Philosophus T 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick glance at the references shows at least half of them to fail WP:RS. I'd be tempted to just AfD this article, but I don't feel up to another pseudoscience battle right now. In an ideal world, the article would just neutrally describe the fact that a small but (hopefully) notable number of people believe that quantum mechanical thought processes allow ESP, but good luck getting the article into anything resembling that form. --Christopher Thomas 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there already a decent discussion of this sort in some article?  We could probably turn this one into a redirect.  Anville 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anyone object to redirecting it to Consciousness causes collapse?  --Michael C. Price talk 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do. The articles do not appear to be related. One is about consciousness causing collapse, the other is about psychic nonsense. By the way, the Consciousness causes collapse article seems quite bad as well. --Philosophus T 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No disputing that, but it's less bad.  --Michael C. Price talk 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's already up for AfD. --Philosophus T 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On which I voted to delete.  I don't feel like trying to turn this dreary pageant of bad thinking into something scientific and encyclopedic. . . maybe I'm just getting old?  Anville 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unscientific yes, but unencyclopedic?  Eugene Wigner published stuff on consciousness and QM.  So I say redirect and the number of pseudoscience articles is reduced by one.  --Michael C. Price talk 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most sensible redirect I can find is to point the "Parallels" page to Orch-OR, another page which needs serious de-POVing by a real science person.  Anville 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness 

message: The editor , who also edits as , has been aggressively removing information he considers to be unfounded "rumour" from string theory and other articles. For all I know he may be correct, but he isn't providing citations, just re-inserting when reverted and making statements on talk pages. If additional people familiar with the topic could take a look at the (short) edit histories of these two users and sanity-check them, it would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, I've left messages attempting to clue him in. --Christopher Thomas 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linas pointed out that the tone of the statements at string theory was a bit sensationalistic, so I replaced it with text based on the much more neutral statements at Gabriele Veneziano (which the above editors also don't like). --Christopher Thomas 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems at [[string theory]] 

message: A wonderfully exciting new theory of spacetime, which solves all the problems faced by modern physics by positing an extra two temporal dimensions.  Designed by a "chaos magician", this one is quite bizarre.  I have added tags, infobox, etc., but it's going to need a lot of help.  Moreover, since it isn't published anywhere except on the chap's own website (with all of 608 google hits); should it be here? Byrgenwulf 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just said on the article's Talk page, Hyperwarp 6D would be a good title for an arcade game, but as pseudophysics, it's not even widespread enough to be notable "quantum flapdoodle".  AfD is only a template away. . . .  Anville 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In progress. Byrgenwulf 14:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hyperwarp 6D]] & AfD

message: Help us edit, expand, and reference a new article on Metric expansion of space. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to, but I'm not qualified. (Brits will understand if I say that I failed physics A-level. Well, I did pass it the second time around.) Still, I think I recognize rather silly objections to certain aspects of ScienceApologist's work when I see them. One or two more people well up in physics may wish to chime in there. -- Hoary 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric expansion

message: There is a proposal on Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects at the bottom of a long list for a Wikiproject on Physical Chemistry. Discussion on it is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. This would look at all articles in the general area of Physical Chemistry and this includes a lot of articles that are more linked to Physics articles. The project will be a sub project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry but maybe it should also be a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Please comment on all aspects of this proposal. --Bduke 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject on Physical Chemistry

message: I just started a new WikiProject for WikiProject Spectroscopy. I am hoping that efforts can be focused from this project and WikiProject Chemistry.  I am new to editing and may have taken too big of a bite. --Tjr9898 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject on Spectroscopy

message: The article Mass of the observable universe is up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_of_the_observable_universe. It might be useful if some one with a cosmology background can inform about the hoax/original research status of this article. -- Koffieyahoo 05:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: Mass of the observable universe 

message: I am looking for quality rational input from a very physics perspective on physics related articles that have components that fall at the interface between physics and chemistry. It does involve content disputes however I am not looking for mediation. I am interested in including your perspectives in my position on the issue. In other words I am very open minded and actively seeking input. It is important to understand the difference between truth and verifiability and to be able to parse the two. Please contact me on my talk page to start collaborating on this and hopefully other interfacial articles.--Nick Y. 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough in these fields to contribute usefully. User:DV8 2XL would have been a good choice, but he seems to have left Wikipedia (after the depleted uranium debacle). --Christopher Thomas 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for physics input at physics/chemistry interface 

message: There's now a discussion going on at talk:time about revising the introduction and definition of time (again). It could use review by actual physics-types, as this article has always had a high amount of attention from philosophers, and that seems to now be exclusively the case. --Christopher Thomas 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you weren't kidding.  I loved the line, "Christopher Thomas, you are saying that a phenomenon can exist without a brain in which it appears as a phenomenon? That would be a non-phenomenal phenomenon. Time, though, is not a phenomenon. Time is the possibility of an animal brain's experience of the succession of phenomena." Zippy!  Sadly, reading the article and talk page left me numb and useless for further editing today.  I'll try this weekend.  Adelord 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Time]] again 

message: Alcubierre drive: I've got Spacewarp and Alcubierre metric merged in where it could best fit, but it needs serious verification and cleanup by people who have degrees or books handy. Cwolfsheep 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need eyes on a merge attempt 

message: Meta comment about this page.
 19:06, 23 July 2006 Cwolfsheep (Talk | contribs) (Need eyes on a merge attempt)
 01:37, 23 July 2006 Bduke (Talk | contribs) (Phys Chem Project started)
 01:17, 23 July 2006 MichaelCPrice (Talk | contribs) (?Yet another AfD)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^problematic edit
 01:11, 23 July 2006 Hillman (Talk | contribs)
 01:00, 23 July 2006 MichaelCPrice (Talk | contribs) (?Yet another AfD)
When 01:17 was made, an unarchiving, it wiped out some Hillman text, inadvertently. Please restore; if you need help, maybe one of your Megafriends can help. --GangofOne 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flow of contribs is mangled

message: A massive linking campaign seems to be underway by , who is adding links to articles about nuclear rockets and interstellar travel at high speed (top speed: twice a minute, though not necessarily bot assisted). I'm in the middle of a deadline crunch at work, so I'm not in a position to vet these changes right now. Anyone care to take a look at it? --Christopher Thomas 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the links seem to be (sometimes marginally) pertinent to the topics of the articles - I'm leaving those; but there is also a link to some web-forum ("Atomic Rockets"), which pops up on each edit, and which I am removing from all the articles. Common courtesy says, I think, to put a new link, especially one of that nature, at the bottom of the list, after all the more relevant ones (like to NASA sites and things).  Byrgenwulf 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A (very) new user has left a note on my talk page claiming that this is IP address belongs to a banned user by the name of Wayne Smith (flying fox (talk • contribs), blocked for vandalism and name-calling after disputes stemming from Project Orion (nuclear propulsion). I have no way of assessing the truthfulness of this accusation. I directed them to AN/I. --Christopher Thomas 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Universe Daily sock and one of his spam links.  They all lead to the same website.  I removed one from a salt water nuclear rocket article.  They're usually deceptive in their naming, and multiple may be added at once with different address that go to the same forum.  He's indef blocked by some admins.  If you see lots of wierd spam being added to physics articles, drop us a line over at the WikiProject Spam talk page for some investigation. Kevin_b_er 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive linking campaign 

message: From time to time I have seen angry cranks complain in AfD that asking others to comment in a physics-related AfD is somehow inappropriate.  A possibly relevant ArbCom precedent which might be worth bookmarking:
I didn't previously know about Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents.  Some editors feel that precedents from previous ArbCom cases should guide admins in other cases which have not been taking to RfA, but one admin I asked to comment says he does not agree with that claim.  Still, from the viewpoint of citing community norms and practices wrt say WP:IAR, the above link might be useful.
From User:Hillman/Media_commentary_on_Wikipedia#Stacy_Schiff:
Indeed ;-/  ---CH 02:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't one of the main purposes of this page to ask people for help?  And just wherefore is a dividing line drawn between AfDs and all other pages??  Sheesh.  I guess expecting good sense from "angry cranks" is a bit much to ask.  Anville 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruiting assistance at this page 

message: Hi all, I think you might be interested in this MfD.  ---CH 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help me defend my policy-related research into wikishilling

message: A number of articles have been recently created by Alvatros (talk • contribs) on topics relating to time and spacetime. These articles for the most part have content that is a mixture of poorly phrased duplication of ideas from time, spacetime, and quantum gravity, and of original research. Problematic contributions to dimension have also been made. As this is a new user, the edits are probably being made in good faith, but the mess still needs cleaning up. I'll try to explain WP:NOR on this user's talk page. --Christopher Thomas 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quantic space-time has been recreated. I'm attempting to explain, for the second time, that this isn't the place for original research and that he should go through deletion review instead of just recreating the content, but I don't seem to be getting through. --Christopher Thomas 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was quick :). Someone's watching the "speedy deletion" queue.--Christopher Thomas 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic articles relating to time and spacetime. 

message: Kazvorpal (talk • contribs) keeps modifying the black hole article to emphasize MECOs. I've already reverted once before. Someone else can take a look at this, as I'm going on vacation soon. --Christopher Thomas 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ObCaveat to check carefully to make sure any genuinely valid points are kept, of course. --Christopher Thomas 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MECO article needs severe cleanup: am embarking on a bit of that, but by Lucifer some people need to learn what a bibliography is.  I have added a link to MECOs in the article.  There was apparently a New Scientist article about it, but New Scientist does have a tendency to blow new borderline discoveries out of all proportion with wow-gee-whiz reporting.  Google gets about 30 000 hits for ("MECO" "black hole") but about 20 000 000 for "black hole": as yet they surely do not merit mention as a serious alternative to black holes?  (Have posted this same one on the black hole talk page) Byrgenwulf 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black holes and MECOs 

message: The physics article is under attack by an anon, 61.1.232.81, who  confuses modern physics (a somewhat loose term) with quantum physics and shows no inclination to discuss things.  I'd revert them again but I'll be bumping up against 3RR soon.  --Michael C. Price talk 12:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum =/= Modern Physics

message: This article has a strange preamble that seems to serve no purpose at all other than being ugly and unencyclopedic. Do you think it is needed? Loom91 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thermodynamic temperature]] 

message: Please come and vote :)  Count Iblis 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD [[List of non-mainstream theories]] underway 

message: I thought it would be pertinent to post this here given that it is the project page.  Over the past few months the Physics article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction.  Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state.  There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article.  That review and consensus process has been proposed here, editors thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated.  It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope other editors can have a browse by the page to offer their views and hopefully participate.  Thanks, SFC9394 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics Article WIP proposal 

message: User:JDoolin is pushing his "Milne cosmology" into inappropriate physics articles e.g. . Keep an eye on him, guys.  --Michael C. Price talk 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew!  Thanks for the warning, that would have been bad.  Exactly what is the danger here? User:JDoolin 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milne cosmology

message: This article is currently under discussion for deletion but has very few comments. Interested parties may like to visit the page and place votes in the deletion discussion. zowie 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I apologize for accidentally removing this section; I was trying to get rid of a bit of junk inserted at the very top which I noticed had interfered with the Archive box.  I didn't notice that this had been inserted with the same edit — mea culpa.  I have commented on the AfD now.  Again, many apologies, and best wishes.  Anville 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  Sorry, looking at the history it appears that junk came in with my edit though I don't recall entering any templates up there.  Anyhow, thanks for participating in th AfD -- it's good to have some project folks looking at it. zowie 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:AfD]]: [[Electrical Discharge Machining in Space]]

message: User:Lucaas, who I believe to be a sockpuppet of User:Tercross, keeps making edits at Modern geocentrism that seem nonsensical to me. I've reverted three times now. --LambiamTalk 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edits at [[Modern geocentrism]] 

message: An article called Special relativity - simple explanation was created by a user today. I marked the article for prod stating the reason "The topic of this article is already covered by Special relativity and Introduction to special relativity". The prod was challenged by the user claiming that the introduction article is too technical. Please see the discussion on Talk:Special relativity - simple explanation. The user has posted a message at Talk:Introduction to special relativity too. It would help if some members of this project can handle the issue. Thanks, and I hope I have come to the correct wikiproject. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special relativity - simple explanation]] 

message: A new editor is posting on talk:quasar asserting that the supermassive black hole explanation of AGNs is a "crock of shit" and accepted only as the least ugly of several bad explanations. If any lurking astrophysicists can spell out the evidence for him/her, that would potentially forestall difficulties with the article itself. My understanding was that this model was nearly universally accepted, due to the sources being both compact and distant, and relativistic jets being a well-documented effect. --Christopher Thomas 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still going. Another new user has chimed in supporting the first. An edit to the article by this user has been reverted (not by me).--Christopher Thomas 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert war appears to be in progress. --Christopher Thomas 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted about this problem on WP:AN/I, as Lengis (talk • contribs) doesn't appear to be taking the hint from multiple editors reverting his/her contributions, and keeps reinserting the same material. Their latest source is a book from 1983 (i.e., more than two decades out of date). More statements from bona fide astrophysics types would be appreciated. --Christopher Thomas 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[talk:quasar]]

message: I note the  are up to five pages again;  I've crunched some numbers based on perm-cat membership, and I don't see any obvious holes in the stub type coverage, though  (205),  (82) and  (80) might be viable, depending how riddled those counts are with false positives.  Mainly I suspect there's a large amount of under-sorting to existing stub-types.  Certainly I note over 100 in each of , , ,  and  -- lists available on request, if someone with expert knowledge would be good enough to sift wheat from chaff.  Alai 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a change in the stub sub-categories could help: I dislike the 'Nuclear and Atomic physics' category nuclear-stub.  Wouldn't make sense to make it solely 'nuclear' and make an 'Atomic, molecular, and optical physics' sub-category?  This is how most physics sub-departments are broken up.  There are many articles that are 'physics stubs' that I would move to a AMO sub-category but currently can't get moved because they fall in both optics and nuclear/atomic (unless we just put them in both).Waxigloo 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible;  hopefully it won't deplete the nuclear-stub type too seriously.  I just realized we don't actually have a thermodynamics-stub, so I've proposed both of these here.  Please add any comments there.  In the meantime, if anyone would be inclined to volunteer to double-check lists of potential re-sortees to the existing stub types, I could opload these, and if they're OK, restub them by bot.  Alai 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics-stubs oversized again 

message: Should QED be:
# a page about the phrase quod erat demonstrandum, with a dablink to QED (disambiguation),
# a page about quantum electrodynamics, with a dablink to QED (disambiguation), or
# a disambiguation page, with links to both the above and to lesser uses.
My opinion is clearly (3), but come share yours at talk:QED (disambiguation). --Trovatore 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of QED

message: I cordially invite the participants of this project to the newly founded wikiversity school of Physics. It's still being moved over, so a lot of work is still needed--Rayc 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiversity Physics school

message: I've requested Peer Review for the Plasma physics artcles, discussion should appear on the page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Plasma (physics)/archive1. All comments welcome. --Iantresman 11:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma (physics): Wikipedia:Peer review

message: Hello,
At the commons:Commons:Help desk we got this comment about this picture:
"There is a serious mistake in this picture. The force on the left of the pulley, represented by the red arrow, is not directed vertically. Therefore this force has a vertical and a horizontal component in a cartesian system and will pull the pulley to the left: not a static but a dynamic situation. To keep a long story short: the picture will be correct when the cable (and with it the red arrow) on the left of the pulley is vertical and parallel to the cable on the right side of the pulley. (Only then will the forces be in balance.)"
Is this true? If so, does anyone feel like uploading a corrected version over the top of this one? :) If not, would you mind explaining why at the Commons Help desk/here? Thanks! --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objections are correct. I can't make a picture that's anywhere near as pretty as this one is, though, so I'm not the person to ask to fix it. A suitable replacement would either have both cables vertical, or both cables at an angle. The sum of the force vectors should be zero, representing a motionless situation; otherwise the reader will likely get confused. --Christopher Thomas 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Besselfunctions 22:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or the pulley could have friction and the numbers would change.  Usually not the problem you want to illustrate though.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree.  It depends what the picture is being used for.  If you go the page of pulley pictures , it is labelled as 'moveable pulley'.  Comparing it with the fixed pulley next to it, I would say this image was created to be dynamic on purpose.  If this picture is being used somewhere in a different context then that is the text's problem not the images.Waxigloo 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the disagreement. The pulley is intended to be movable (i.e., in a non-fixed position), but the force diagram is still incorrect, as it shows an unbalanced force on the pulley. This picture shows the problem even more clearly: The vectors are unbalanced at a pulley that's at a fixed pivot point. You could make the argument that there are additional force vectors not shown (lateral forces at the anchor point), or that the angles of the ropes are exaggerated for emphasis, but an explicit disclaimer to this effect should be added if so, and diagrams that don't have this problem would be preferable. --Christopher Thomas 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the diagram is inaccurate.  The horizontal force must be balanced.  It would pull the rope from vertical to an angle sufficient to balance horizontal forces.  This would be a GREAT illustration of the importance of a correct free body diagram for our Wikiversity statics lesson soon to be arriving here.  I will try get permission from the author to use it as an example of how easy it is to mislead yourself at the start of simple appearing problems.  The second picture will be a good statics problem!  I just need to delete the 50N rope tension and insert T.  At least it is visually correct (since the anchor can balance the rope on the left x component) with just incorrect tension for the Weight shown.  user:mirwin
Well, its not even visually correct! The horizontal component of the force isn't balanced! Either both ropes are vertical, or neither rope is vertical. The angle of both ropes to the pulley should be equal and opposite. Beautiful isllustration, but totally wrong. linas 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could someone please FIX IT???? :( --pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact the editors who originally contributed those images. You really don't want an Xfig version from me. --Christopher Thomas 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. --JohJak2 18:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanity check -  is this diagram inaccurate? 

message: Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace]]

message: Please add comments to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC on redshift

message: === Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball ===
I filed a user conduct RfC concerning User:Rod Ball. If you are interested in SR and pointless disputes (respectively attempts to end them), you may want to have a look. Or better yet, have a look at Bell's spaceship paradox (and perhaps at Ehrenfest paradox). And don't hesitate to criticize me if you judge, that I'm somewhat acting out of proportion. --Pjacobi 11:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two small items 

message: I filed a user conduct RfC concerning User:Rod Ball. If you are interested in SR and pointless disputes (respectively attempts to end them), you may want to have a look. Or better yet, have a look at Bell's spaceship paradox (and perhaps at Ehrenfest paradox). And don't hesitate to criticize me if you judge, that I'm somewhat acting out of proportion. --Pjacobi 11:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball]] 

message: If anyone is interested to watch the newest Perpetuum Mobile scam, pls put Steorn on your watchlist. I tried to get this deleted, but a overwhelming number of keepers resulted in speedy keep. --Pjacobi 11:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steorn]] 

message: I have recently expanded the neutrino oscillation article quite a bit.  Since I have made essentially all of the edits since early July, I would appreciate having some people look it over for any combination of spelling, grammar, style and/or physics content.  I've probably made errors that I can't see because I've looked at them for too long.  Thanks!  --Strait 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrino oscillation updates 

message: Say that with a straight face!  Better yet, vote on the AfD.  Anville 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Homeopathy relativity]]" 

message: Hi all, 
I've devoted some time recently to Photon, which now seems to be a "B-class" article.  I'd like to take the article higher, though, maybe even to Good Article status, but I don't have much experience with what's required.  Could some experienced people here please look the article over and give suggestions for further improvements?  Thanks muchly! :D Willow 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help on Photon

message: Unless there has been some change of official policy of which I am unaware (in which case please let me know forthwith), it is not improper for me to ask for comments from members of this WikiProject in the above RfC.  I feel that in the edit quoted in my "view" in this RfC,  has outrageously mispresented my knowledge, my reading, my actions, and what I told him concerning my knowledge, my reading, and my actions.  I regard his outrageous misrepresentations of what I have done and said here as a violation of WP:NPA-WP:CIV-WP:VER and I don't know what else.  While the unfairness and completely counterfactual character of the quoted statement by Rod Ball is verifiable (given sufficient effort) by any Wikipedia user, my statements about the very extensive literature on the Ehrenfest and Bell paradoxes would no doubt benefit from endorsement by knowledgeable physicists.  Note that the excellent review paper by Grøn is available on-line and contains hundreds of references; see the citation to the book edited by Rizzi and Ruggiero which appears at the end of Ehrenfest paradox.---CH 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rod Ball]]

message: Latest shennanigans at black hole: Danras (talk • contribs) repeatedly inserting his own arguments for why escape from black holes is possible. More help with cleanup would be handy. --Christopher Thomas 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of symmetrical relativity returns.  Oh boy.  Anville 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch for unusual editing from  as well. linas 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My brain hurts just looking at that contribution history. Probable meatpuppet: Liseusa (talk • contribs). Seems to be inactive. Possible collaborator: Homy (talk • contribs), though that user seems to almost completely deal with things homeopathy-related. --Christopher Thomas 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a glance, I agree, looks to me like  is a candidate for identification with the author of the article deleted via symmetrical relativity.  I just posted to Talk:Black hole some comments on this edit, but I really hope you don't need me to know that this edit is utter Dreck from start to finish.  ---CH 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That didn't come out right.  I was trying to say that I was dismayed to see this fabulously bad edit by Danras went unreverted for 75 minutes.  How could that have happened?---CH 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More problems at [[black hole]] 

message: While there's (finally) some movement to sanify  (now ), which includes giving it a title that more accurately reflects its subject (nuclear isomer weapons), the editor coordinating the change and I are disagreeing over the degree to which Prof. Collins' hafnium bomb claims are taken seriously by the scientific community. If a few of the regulars could review the statements made on the talk page, and recent changes (both ways) at the article, that would be appreciated. --Christopher Thomas 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made the move, and I am cleaning up links now (that's how I got here). Working on a real ballotechnics insert shortly. In the meantime I'm with you on the Collin's issue, for what that's worth. Maury 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The user making the disputed edits is now summarily dismissing my concerns. More eyes would be greatly appreciated. --Christopher Thomas 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After discussion and lots of editing, the article on IGE appears to be comprehensible and accurate. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), there's little or nothing to dispute there now, right? linas 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballotechnics 

message: Astrobayes has begun to scientifically peer-review the Photon article, with the goal of bringing it to Featured Article status.  Your comments could help us get there!  Please give us your assessment of the completeness, correctness, readability, etc.  Also, there's been some debate as to whether the virtual photons used in summing probability amplitudes in quantum electrodynamics have three polarizations (as befits a particle of spin 1) or four (corresponding to the four components of the electromagnetic four-potential A^{\mu}).  We all know that real photons have two transverse polarizations.  If you know the answer and can cite scientific references, please let us know at Talk:Photon — thanks! Willow 11:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on Photon

message: I am kind of new to this, so I am not sure what the proper procedure is:
A user from an Institute of Physics (IoP) IP address Special:Contributions/193.128.223.36 has been going through optics-related wiki-pages at a rate of about one per minute and adding links to IoP websites.  This is in violation of WP:External links.  Giving the user the benefit of the doubt, I assume they don't know that it is wrong for them to indiscriminately promote their own website.  Is there a way to inform this user of the problem?  
Also, I can't be here for the rest of the day, so I cannot revert all the changes myself -- could I get some help there?Waxigloo 12:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Optics External Links

message: Is this edit to Modern geocentrism an improvement? I get tired of reverting, and can't talk the editor out of keeping re-applying it. --LambiamTalk 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern geocentrism again