![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you have an opinion, please share it at Assessment_working_group#Second_task:_Initial_discussion_on_A-Class. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the explanation for the paradoxical effect, and where the energy for it comes from.
As one of the parties in the dispute I don't think I should try to explain the two sides here. However, I copy and pasted the discussions up to this point to Talk:Oberth_effect#Disagreement_over_explantion_of_paradox. -- Wingedsubmariner (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features.
The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".
This is an automated message sent out by Addbot to all wikiprojects per request ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, it appears that someone is "spamming" links to the Xtrusture website, which appears to be associated with arxiv.org and is hosted on a russian research. There is a discussion here, a bit of scientific feedback would be appreciated, could you look at the links being inserted and comment on wheter those links are useful to the articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about some possible plagiarism by Lantonov (talk · contribs) at WP:ANI#Plagiarist caught red-handed and refusing to cooperate. Among his contributions are some physics articles: BKL singularity, Synchronous frame, Loránd Eötvös, Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor, Casimir effect, General relativity, and maybe others (I didn't go back through his whole edit history). It may be worthwhile for some project participants to check whether there are any problems with his additions to these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If anyone reading this thread understands inflation better than I do, I would appreciate any comments on the bullet points below. It all seems pretty elementary and unlikely to be wrong, but it also seems to contradict a lot of what I've read about inflation in textbooks and popular books. I've known for years that claims that inflation is "faster than light" are wrong, but it was disconcerting to find that, for example, inflationary expansion is actually slower than the traditional big bang expansion and inflation that ends "10−32 seconds after the big bang" lasts for substantially longer than 10−32 seconds. I'm inclined to write a "common misconceptions about inflation" section for Wikipedia, but before I do that I'd better check that I haven't made a terrible mistake.
Thanks. -- BenRG (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
To Henning Makholm: Forgive me for not being clearer. If we include the cosmological "constant" into the density , then one gets
In the inflationary era, we have
and thus
In the radiation era, we have
and thus
So, as you suggested, it does change from a positive value to a negative value. Notice that the density is a positive constant during the inflationary era and continuous over the boundary while becoming proportional to during the radiation era. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I see that I was wrong about the inflationary era beginning after rather than before the time when the radiation era would have begun if there was nothing before the radiation era.
If we assume that the inflation era extended all the way back to a creation event at t=0, then we get
If we substitute this into
then we get
which may disturb some people. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Freshly delivered by WolterBot.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Done
The CTE article is currently assessed as "list" class. As this article is definitely not a list, I'd like to request a reassessment. Thanks. Have a great day. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 08:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if some of you folks could take a look at Apparent weight (I raise it here because I think the article's talk page gets little traffic). In the lead section, it seems to be saying that "weight" is purely the gravitational force, ignoring all other forces that might be acting on the object. Is this correct? For example, if something is weighed in air at the Equator, then wouldn't its "weight" simply be the net force acting, which would include contributions from, for example, buoyancy and, erm, centrifugal force -- both of which seem to be excluded from "weight" by this article? To be honest, I'm not sure about the rationale of this article as a whole, even w.r.t. accelerating objects. Isn't "apparent weight" just "weight", full stop? If I'm in a lift accelerating upwards, then is it really true that my "weight" stays the same, but my "apparent weight" increases? (My mass stays the same, sure.) 86.133.54.109 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:33, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Galactic orientation has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion at WT:ASTRO#Twin Quasar about a recent renaming and revision to the notation format used in the article. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a hoax? My bullshitdar went off.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is a animated discussion going on about the proposed article Physics of Glass, which I think is highly relevant for the WikiProject Physics. The discussion can be found on the talk page of the article Glass. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong about the proposed article, except some formality issues that could be easily fixed. The article does not seem to contain original research. It would be nice, if an expert in the field could check the scientific content because, as you will soon recognize, it is not so easy to read for somebody who is not a physicist. Thank you in advance...--Afluegel (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the user Logger9 is working on further article proposals: Physics of the glass transition and Phase transformations in solids. Because Logger9 is not very long yet with Wikipedia it would be helpful, if a physicist could advise him about the content and formalities. Thank you. -- Afluegel (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I realized that many important articles about the topic glass are within the WikiProject Physics, for example Amorphous solid, Glass transition temperature, Physics of glass, Vitreous, Viscosity, ((Glass-material-stub)), and several articles from the former WikiProject Optics. I am wondering if it would be possible to find a home for the task force Glass development page within the WikiProject Physics. The topic glass covers about 500-600 articles. The problem is, however, that many of those articles are not related to physics, such as glass history and glass art. For this reason, I would suggest, not to incorporate the proposed task force within the main project Physics as Acoustics, Fluid dynamics, and Relativity that fit 100% within physics, but to leave an independent template ((Glass)) for the project. The user Headbomb agreed to help with setting up the task force. Is there any opposition from members of the WikiProject Physics, or are there other suggestions? Thank you...--Afluegel (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
((physics))
, per the request, so it is completely independant of the ((physics)) template. It supports both importance and the quality scale, as well as other niceties found in the documentation of the glass template. Glass articles also related to physics should also be tagged with ((physics)). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)FYI, WP:LV WikiProject Rocketry is reorganizing, since rocketry is related to your subject of concern, this is to inform you. See WT:WikiProject_Rocketry#WPSpace 76.66.193.69 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can persuade User:Hrafn that his/her repeated gutting of this article is unhelpful. I don't have time to attempt to deal with it right now, but the article cannot be left in the state this user apparently prefers. False vacuum (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
is here. The idea is that price inflation is not obviously of greatly vaster significance than cosmic inflation, which incidentally is usually called plain "inflation". False vacuum (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Formation and evolution of black holes and Properties and features of black holes have been proposed for deletion. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In Starling equation#The equation, the units are inconsistent. ([Pc − Pi] − σ[πc − πi]) is described as the net driving force, but in fact is not a force; it is rather a pressure. If there is an assumption about capillary cross-sectional area that explains the Pressure-Force relationship, that should be stated.
Also, the The Equation discussion may want explain the assumption of constant fluid density across the capillary membrane (which allows for the net fluid movement between compartments, Jv to be discusses as a volumetric flow and not a mass flow). At first this seems obvious, because the density changes may not be an important part of the physics. However, the Reflection Coefficient discussion indicates "most capillaries in the body are fairly impermeable to the large molecular weight proteins." Are the density changes an important part of the physics? Is the Reflection coefficient a correction for a density differential?
Thanks, JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeman2 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)