245:, a well-done article, and there are a number of references listed at the bottom. All the Phys. Rev. ones at least will have free online abstracts (and on-line articles for a fee). Yes, folks who read the Knowledge article can go and look up the references themselves at the journal web pages but links are useful! I've added links to a bunch of articles but I don't have the energy to fix a lot of them. This task is the sort of thing that a clever person could create a 'bot to do.
31:
1348:
molecular gas than the dispute will be a cruel fight with chemistryproject chemicalsproject arbcom peerreview administrators and all people a can drag into the arena! The stubid uraniumoxide dust is simply there and as some idiots found it in the compustion dirt of kuwait tanks there is no chance that UO3 not part of compustion! The nonsense with the uraniumoxide molecules flying around for months is and will be the problem for ever, because arguments dont count.--
165:"Game theorists may assume players always act rationally to maximize their wins (the Homo economicus model), but real humans often act either irrationally, or act rationally to maximize the wins of some larger group of people (altruism). Game theorists respond by comparing their assumptions to those used in physics. Thus while their assumptions do not always hold, they can treat game theory as a reasonable scientific ideal akin to the models used by physicists."
326:, and am fishing for an opinion on this matter. There are now several physics articles on WP which seem to have the following characteristics: 1) they are contentious 2) they appear to have only a small following 3) the propound a theory which doesn't seem quite right, but is also not quite obviously wrong. 4) The contention seems to involve accusations that the theorists failed to understand or take into account some bit of physics.
1192:, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Knowledge's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not goodāwe must raise our standards above this. --
469:
articles which fail to mention the questionable status of Heim theory in theoretical physics. This activity seems intened to leave impression with casual readers that this "theory" is part of the physics mainstream. Searching WP for "Heim theory" gives a long list, spot checking reveals POV problems with many of the affected articles, which include:
1150:
The template will be named condensedmatter-stub. Besides, I was thinking of creating a template for thermodynamics and statistical physics, since many articles fit into it also. And, in my stub sorting I am putting nuclear related stubs to particles, since it is the closest available and I don't know
634:
It really is the same
Hasselmann. I just noticed his arXiv preprint was apparently a talk (60 page paper, so must have been a week long talk, heh) given at a Festscrift for W. Kundt of "Ehlers and Kundt" fame. (That's a famous 1962 review paper, a must-read for gtr fans.) As a mathematical modeler
580:
Just as I was about to say "at least
Hasselmanns stuff is in PR journals" I see that the refs are "Hasselmann, K.(1996a,b,1997a,b). The metron model: Elements of a unified deterministic theory of fields and particles. Part 1: The Metron Concept. Physics Essays, 9, 311 - 325, 1996; Part 2: The Maxwell
179:
The word "mathematics" might have been a better choice. Within the domain of validity, the theory is valid. Outside of that domain .. its not. The paragraph also has a rather naive view of "rational/irrational" behavior; economists certaily know its more subtle than that. ...and so do game theorists.
897:
based on an article in the
Economist and pages at the University of Maryland website (both reference in the article). It's been labeled pseudoscience, and I want to know if I've been had and the article put up for deletion. Would one of you worthy people pop in for a look and offer an opinion on the
643:, so should have the mathematical background to readily pick up Belinsky and Zakharov's method for finding certain special solutions of the EFE, formally analgous to the IST. But from his preprint, it seems he is equivocal about whether he has actually done that. He apparently doesn't discuss the
1309:
Uranium oxide was detected to have a vapour pressure of 10 at at 1500K or so (also giving a log p to 1/T plot from 1700 to 1000K). The fellow wikipedian now states that there must be plenty of uranium trioxide arround at room temperature. With the ideal gas law I tried to calculate the numbers of
1373:
and others who claim to be "experts" are in fact rude and crude and insulting. They may well be right on the technical issues; who knows. However, the debate is hard enough to follow, without having the self-proclaimed "good guys" spewing vitriol everywhere. Really, guys, please calm down, take a
665:
This is one of the absolute worst pieces of Dreck I'm come across in WP, and I could use some help in the AfD. I was quite appalled by the initial responses, although some commentators changed their vote after I asked them to take a second look. If the community can't manage to delete an article
1595:
I have a very interesting encounter with the mass spectrometry community. This community is dominated by analytical chemists and they firmly believe that mass spectrometers measure a physiscal quantity that is dimensionless and which they call m/z. Being a mass spectrometrist myself, I try to
468:
I trust we all agree that the current version of this article is rather uncritical, despite the fact that Heim "theory" is listed as a crank theory in a project page. I have noticed someone has been adding links to this article in various physics-related articles, or creating small highly POV
1347:
The dispute is that simple! You arguing as with lamp black which is actaly a particle not a molecule! If you agree with this the dispute on the page is over!The particle can have his freedom and fly around for ever like normal dust! But if you start arguing that this is a molecule and as momo
418:
I agree with WMC that one must be very careful to word things to avoid giving ammunition to the ID crowd (this movement might seem to have nothing to do with physics, but in fact amounts to an attempt to dismantle science in
America, so everyone here should be concerned about their efforts).
728:, not the WikiProject Pseudoscience talk page. In practice, people seem to have mostly stopped using PNA/Physics in favour of the WikiProject Physics talk page. I'm a bit concerned about this, as it means most of the items on PNA/Physics end up sitting in the queue for quite a while. --
272:
where the DOI in this case is dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2004.02.042 Compare this to the full direct link: www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-4BSWJC2-5&... _coverDate=04%2F12%2F2004&_alid=357373613&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=...
740:
Can you rewrite the affected pages to help guide harried users like me to the right place? My interest is in writing new material, so I tend not to want to spend a lot of time trying to figure out where to complain or ask for help in cases like the "free energy resources" and
267:
for information. It is printed on the first page of almost all academic articles. Journals can change their online distributers and hence, links can go bad over time. Also links are sometimes much too long. A more permanent alternative is to link in the following manner:
1176:
has been started and we're looking for
Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.
1434:
I have to say that I feel that it is bad form for anyone to edit WP articles concerning a controversy in which he/she is directly involved. It would appear to be almost impossible for such a user to give a clearheaed and unbiased characterization of the controversy.
908:
I've taken a look, and commented. While I have serious concerns about the article in its present state, it appears to describe legitimate science. If anyone here's a physics prof, maybe ping U of
Maryland directly to ask about publications in scientific literature.
1668:
over whether this infobox should use bulletted or comma-delimited lists. It's a pretty trivial issue, but unfortunately only one version will look good with the way tables appear to work, so it's best to settle on one or the other as quickly as possible.
604:
It is postulated that the equations support soliton-type solutions (metrons) which reproduce all the basic field equations of quantum field theory, including not only the
Maxwell-Dirac-Einstein system, but also all fields and symmetries of the Standard
1139:
A condensed-matter stub list will be useful to those of us mostly likely to work on the CMP articles, especially as more physicists become
Wikipedians (I hope). I don't care what the name is as long as the identification of CMP is clear.
879:) but there was a (valid, in my view) talk page comment that it is also an important topic in philosophy, religion, etc... Now there seems to be some disagreement about what the hell to do with it, so I thought I'd ask some of y'all. Thanks. ā
581:
Dirac-Einstein System. Physics Essays,9, 460 - 475, 1996; Part 3: Quantum
Phenomena. Physics Essays, 10, 64 - 86, 1997; Part 4: The standard Model. Physics Essays, 10, 269 - 286, 1997." - I seem to recall people saying PE was a bit dodgy.
757:
I was under the impression that there was already a notice on the WP:Pseudoscience talk page, but it turns out I was mistaken. I've added one ({{notice}} makes it nice and, well, noticeable). Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
371:... argh sorry) is really not science at all: its just people with wacky ideas playing at the forms but with no conception of the realities. So even calling it fringe physics is allowing them too much: its not physics at all.
1418:
has written some new articles which express his non-mainstream POV, which I'd hesitate to call cranky just yet, but in any case these articles need to be NPOVed to describe the current controversy more fairly and accurately:
240:
One minor bit of formatting that I think would be nice for physics articles and especially for history of physics is to include hyperlinks to original papers, or at least their abstracts. For example, I was just perusing
1015:
I've closed the debate as speedy keep, with a note that people should perhaps check with us here before declaring physics articles to be original research. ("Beyond the standard model" get 307,000 google hits, too!) --
262:
Here is a style suggestion for wikipedia in general. For book references an ISBN number is a good universal reference. There is a similar object for academic articles called the DOI (digital object identifier). See
797:
Actually, I'm not terribly active either (I've mostly been on sabbatical, and making mostly vandalism reversions when I do edit). Also, I have no authority at all to say what should and shouldn't go on _this_ page
953:
to be a bit off-topic. I suspect that the addition is an effort by C. Michael Hogan to promote himself. White and
Nakamura on the other hand are well-known physicists. Since I wrote most of the content of
597:
publishes speculative essays which are often unpublishable elsewhere; that is more or less its stated purpose. Of course, some papers in there might have some value, but many do not. See the abstract of a
622:
I would add that while I hope climate scientists know some physics, clearly we should suspect that even a distinguished climate scientist venturing into grand unified theory might be out of his depth!
845:. However, since I know nothing at all about math and physics, it would be very good if someone who actually understands the text could look at the new article and make any necessary changes. Thanks!
1310:
molecules in one cubic meter at standart conditions. This is only a good guess I know. Now I need somebody to take a look and state that this is more or less right or total bullshit at all.
459:
1124:
I just suggested a condensed matter stub {{condensed-stub}} on the stub sorting project's site. It will be usefull since lots of lots of articles fit in it. Do you agree with the name? --
1604:
which is not dimensionless. Being brain washed towards the dimensionless m/z for years, most of them have difficulties to make this change and therefore I made a special page about the
1673:
561:
544:
511:
169:
I'm not quite sure how to put it, but this statement about physics doesn't sit well with me. It's under the "Uses of Game Theory" section, and then under the "Descriptive" subsection.
1482:
1781:
Note that 10 minutes after the question was asked by Karol, the page got redirected, I believe inappropriately. The comments after that were not commenting on the original page.
1683:
1475:
1330:
Don't oversimplfy the dispute. Last I looked, it was not about vapor pressure, but about combustion dynamics, which is a lot more subtle. I'm sure that the vapor pressure of
1659:
1665:
1735:
Actually the second is about as ignorantly put "quasi-religious co-opting of scientific concepts" but of metaphyics as defined by every philospher from Plato to Durant.
902:
784:
I defer to Christopher Thomas, he is more active on pseudoscience. I take the occasional swipe when I'm in the mood, but am not really active in patrolling these things.
1550:
1651:
585:
574:
423:
402:
1739:
930:
913:
762:
375:
1754:
1728:
1638:
1234:
1009:
207:
1771:(cur) (last) 08:38, 4 April 2006 Sandstein (#REDIRECTInterpretation of quantum mechanics - was content fork (WP:POVFORK) of that article, also original research.)
1285:
806:
732:
273:
1&_cdi=5538&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid... =10&md5=190c081acdc252ce6a8bcf136004ad17 Ouch!--
1794:
1785:
1334:
is huge, but in fact every candle produces it. You'll have a hard time arguing that burning uranium doesn't produce a little bit of this and such crazy compound.
1423:
888:
675:
I have agreed to rewrite this as a redirect page. After some back and forth, it seems that if we let the AfD run its course, my rewrite will probably stand. ---
346:
173:
1523:
1264:
132:
1281:
It's on my watchlist, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert (my field is engineering, not physics). Thus, I'm not comfortable adding my name to the list. --
1114:
385:
I'm concerned that if we create too many categories, we'll get bogged down in endless arguments with supporters of this "theory" or that whether it belongs in
249:
1624:
1461:
302:
277:
214:
145:
1584:
1203:
1155:
1128:
1033:
1020:
231:
1085:
1072:
1058:
1736:
1529:
1243:
1219:
923:
988:
651:
627:
615:
188:
1613:
1605:
788:
715:
1144:
802:). I'll most certainly defer to the regulars if people feel that pseudoscience alerts should be posted here, though I'm less likely to do so myself. --
1352:
1338:
1274:
1710:
1617:
1609:
454:
1497:
1415:
1400:
1251:
357:
367:
the darwinists have successfully resisted the idea that ID is science at all and are very careful of the language. Much pseudo-physics junk (e.g.
1817:
1509:
Is this an article we want? I started adding missing links to the list and then reconsidered that the article duplicates existing categories.
1103:
894:
1803:
1093:
1054:
in there (and perhaps more if it is appropriate)? I am planning to write a few more articles that will fit in this category in the near future.
994:
368:
194:
898:
article talk page. There is no wiki politics here - I'd really like to know - it's not often I get the wool pulled over my eyes this badly. --
857:
724:
Actually, notifications re. pseudoscience articles themselves (as opposed to tools to deal with the articles) are in theory supposed to go on
1590:
330:
153:
97:
1519:
I once thought this way, too. It seems categories and lists serve different purposes, and many people find both helpful, in different ways.
1513:
1634:. Articles in Knowledge should only summarize external source material, not draw new conclusions and present them, even if they're true. --
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
1439:
1394:
1378:
1364:
1324:
689:
On a related note, I guess everyone knows about various articles and links inserted by the free energy crowd, including such articles as
1374:
breather, and stop being obnoxious. James S. has made some good points. Deal with those instead of resorting to threats and ad-hominem.
1246:
1222:
1160:
1133:
679:
670:
118:
1257:
1102:, which is looking to identify quality articles in Knowledge for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using
778:
749:
701:
294:
Thanks for the suggestion; I will change all the article references I made so far to DOI's. By the way, by coincidence I read your
1810:
771:
770:
So Linas and everyone else, do you agree that in future I should direct notices of new pseudoscience articles or similar problems to
725:
1750:
but also quantum logic and the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics (e.g. nondeterminism). The second is sociological.--
1571:
1165:
970:
883:
221:
1218:
article? I have flagged several statements which appear to be wrong but I am not confident enough to start removing them. Thanks.
1407:, has been editing the section of this article which deals with the controversy in which he is directly involved. Similarly for
1041:
1774:(cur) (last) 00:25, 4 April 2006 Karol Langner m (moved Quantum Philosophy to Quantum philosophy: only first word capitalized)
1679:
Rendering problem fixed, so this is now a non-issue. It took an embarassingly long time to clue into the obvious solution. --
1577:
1466:
1099:
1747:
1717:
1110:, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers,
1003:
Is this is how wikipedia welcomes new professional physicists who use their valuable time to make contributions here?Ā :(
708:
314:
1724:
while the second is about quasi-religious co-opting of scientific concepts. It's not even in any scientific categories.
1256:
If you have this talk page on your watchlist, then you should add your name, field(s) of expertise and interests to the
799:
47:
17:
1565:
1457:
That seems a somewhat odd description to me. The article has seen a bit of Reddi, so may have some odd "facts" in it
1270:
And if you have signed up, be sure that the sections on "areas of interest" and "expertise" are filled out as well.
567:
Comment: Hasselmann is a respected climate scientist. Wots he doing mixed up in this? He *has* written about metron
1260:
page! I know there are some newcomers who haven't yet signed up, and I suspect there are some old-timers as well.
1173:
1166:
203:
125:
1490:
1444:
814:
1065:
184:, which lays waste to the whole idea of rational behaviour. I'd say "delete he whole paragraph as nonsense."
1689:
1580:, on whether to mention a couple of alternative theories that directly address The Galaxy rotation problem --
1046:
Can anyone here create the new subcategory "Astroparticle Physics" of Particle Physics and put the articles
1555:
111:
540:
I am trying to fix or flag the problems I have found, but believe there are others I have not found. ---
1502:
1291:
523:
444:
338:
38:
826:
1458:
1119:
996:
582:
571:
372:
161:
The game theory page which is currently featured on the front page makes a statement about physics:
1546:, but there hasn't been enough input on the idea. We could use at least another opinion or more.
1428:
1383:
822:
1489:. As semi-usual, the issues are what the likely population would be, whether to merge these into
1814:
1680:
1670:
1635:
1450:
1282:
910:
842:
815:
803:
759:
729:
607:
IOW, he doesn't actually claim to have proven these things (which appear highly suspicious to me
323:
315:
963:
946:
693:. It's really amazing how many free energy websites there are around the world. At least, the
657:
593:
I agree that noone should accept papers uncritically simply because they have been published.
350:
228:
666:
which is this awful, I really have to question where this alleged encyclopedia is headed. ---
1721:
1314:
568:
1802:
1746:
I'll second that vote. They should not be merged. The first is a broad topic that includes
1196:
684:
498:
8:
401:, which could include things like Nimtz. This would have some overlap with the existing
181:
1791:
1762:
1707:
1695:
1520:
1503:
1215:
976:
BTW, I notice that wikilinks to an article on C. Michael Hogan have also been added to
876:
364:
115:
1700:
1597:
938:
862:
503:
493:
334:
295:
225:
269:
1751:
1725:
1455:
An electrostatic generator is a mechanical device that produces continuous current.
1384:
1303:
1299:
1231:
1209:
1082:
1055:
1030:
1006:
966:
section should be removed. Someone else take a look and see what you think.
528:
274:
142:
105:
1809:
If anyone remembers this from the first time around, it's back again. Details at
1581:
1486:
1404:
1193:
977:
536:, on a magazine which allegedly once published a "daring account" of Heim theory.
488:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1782:
1648:
1547:
1543:
1531:
868:
852:
298:
article at work yesterday while I was puzzling over some fluorescence data.
170:
1706:
Should they be merged together, with something else, or expanded? Tough call.
1631:
1539:
1397:(quitting arguing with cranks, but hoping others still have the energy/time)
1185:
478:
386:
199:
962:, who has already reverted my corrections once, but I think that the entire
349:, but the first two haven't yet advanced that far, but are also clearly not
1790:
That was the case, indeed. My question was valid for about twelve minutes.
1510:
1436:
1391:
1331:
1189:
1181:
1141:
1107:
985:
967:
927:
899:
880:
830:
775:
746:
698:
676:
667:
648:
624:
612:
558:
541:
508:
451:
420:
329:
I'm not sure what to do with such articles. I'm aware of 4, at the moment:
299:
246:
242:
129:
599:
1621:
1557:
1200:
1111:
1017:
981:
959:
742:
554:
550:
473:
461:
154:
1408:
1390:
Has been listed in Pages needing attention. Please give it yours! ---
1375:
1370:
1361:
1349:
1335:
1321:
1271:
1261:
1069:
785:
712:
658:
518:
439:
354:
211:
185:
635:
who works with ocean waves, Hasselblatt is no doubt (?) familiar with
431:
Somehow I seem to be collecting some articles which might belong in a
1494:
1199:
18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (copied from physics portal talk page --
1152:
1125:
955:
950:
939:
872:
846:
690:
533:
821:
Hello, up until a few minutes ago there were two different articles
1051:
958:, I am deeply biased. I don't want to get into a revert war with
875:
article, because what was there before was all about physics (see
636:
697:. I hope things aren't quite as bad in Chinese or Tagalog! ---
483:
342:
403:
List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories#Physics
1180:
The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (
1151:
if it is worthy creating another template just for them. --
1047:
141:
I have edited the article to become more wikipedia-like. --
1064:
You can do it yourself by clicking on the following link:
1612:. If you are interested in this issue, please visit the
1601:
1369:
The problem, as we see demonstrated amply above, is that
640:
180:
Any game theorist worth thier salt would know about the
1716:
I'd vote against merging them. The first redirects to
264:
1644:
924:
Talk:Clean_And_Environmentally_Safe_Advanced_Reactor
1493:, whether to include nuclear technology stubs...
507:(Note: I completely rewrote this one yesterday ---
270:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2004.02.042
1306:are the area where a dispute is running wilde.
1106:, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and
895:Clean And Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor
889:Clean And Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor
345:. The last two might be more comfortable in
611:), only to introduce them as postulates.---
1660:"Disputed science" infobox formatting poll
1258:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics/Participants
774:? I am still not quite clear on this! ---
1811:Knowledge:Pages needing attention/Physics
1230:I've reverted to the last correct version
772:Knowledge:Pages needing attention/Physics
726:Knowledge:Pages needing attention/Physics
549:I might need some help here. Looks like
1600:actually measure a mass to charge ratio
1252:Please sign up on the participants list!
399:List of current controversies in physics
322:I've been thinking about the need for a
222:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science
1616:page and help vote on the corrsponding
867:Can somebody please have a look at the
363:Only that some care is needed. Over at
14:
1296:Need somebody recalculating a number!
1094:Articles for the Knowledge 1.0 project
841:, I merged both articles to one named
195:WikiProject for the History of Science
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1591:I need your help in mass spectrometry
1186:featured article candidate discussion
397:. A possible alternative would be a
1100:Knowledge:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team
964:Spin_wave#Early_theoretical_research
947:Spin_wave#Early_theoretical_research
25:
1748:Interpretation of quantum mechanics
1718:Interpretation of quantum mechanics
949:that has been added to the article
709:Knowledge:WikiProject Pseudoscience
557:without addressing my concerns. ---
23:
1313:Look at Ackermann equation in the
800:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics
24:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics
1828:
1647:, where such things are allowed.
1403:, who is apparently in real life
1214:Could someone have a look at the
602:of the paper you cited. It says
1572:RfC: The Galaxy rotation problem
1564:I have already made my comments
1167:Knowledge:Scientific peer review
553:removed the POV flag I added to
126:Talk:Principle_of_minimum_energy
29:
1720:, which is a valid subfield of
1491:Category:Particle physics stubs
1664:I've started an informal poll
1483:Category:Nuclear physics stubs
1066:Category:Astroparticle physics
1042:Category Astroparticle physics
711:meant to discuss such topics?
204:History of Science Wikiproject
13:
1:
1467:Another physics stub proposal
1449:Could someone take a look at
884:01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
858:18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
807:03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
789:06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
779:05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
763:06:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
750:03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
450:Enjoy, if that's the word.---
337:, and somewhat less clearly,
146:16:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
733:05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
716:14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
702:09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
680:09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
671:23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
652:09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
628:22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
616:22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
586:22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
575:21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
562:20:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
545:03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
512:23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
455:10:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
424:23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
376:16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
358:14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
303:04:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
278:03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
250:04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
232:21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
215:05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
189:22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
174:18:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
133:18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
7:
1761:Here is last of chages of
1578:The Galaxy rotation problem
1538:It has been suggested that
119:12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
112:Principle of minimum energy
10:
1833:
1795:23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
1740:22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
1551:01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1524:07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1514:05:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
1498:00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
1462:18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
1440:04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1395:17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1379:01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1365:07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
1353:07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
1339:01:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1325:09:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1286:05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
1275:01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
1265:22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
1247:03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
1235:14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1223:08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
1204:18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1161:19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1145:15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
524:Unidentified_flying_object
464:edits, articles, and links
445:Abiogenic petroleum origin
339:Stochastic electrodynamics
210:and help him get started.
1818:04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1813:, and on the AfD page. --
1786:05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1755:23:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1729:21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1711:08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1684:05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1674:05:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1652:05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1639:05:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1630:You might want to review
1625:15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
1608:. Now this page is under
1585:19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
1471:Tone's recently proposed
1134:23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1115:20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1086:13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1073:03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1059:00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
1034:23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
1021:07:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
1010:00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
997:Beyond the Standard Model
989:21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
971:20:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
931:05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
914:05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
903:23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
829:. Having determined that
157:and criticism of physics?
1530:Need another opinion on
1429:Post-Newtonian expansion
1098:Hi, I'm a member of the
823:Kramers-Kronig relations
460:Look out for highly POV
202:is trying to start up a
1451:Electrostatic generator
1445:Electrostatic generator
1320:Thanks for your help!--
843:Kramers-Kronig relation
827:Kramers-Krƶnig relation
816:Kramers-Kronig relation
324:Category:Fringe physics
316:Category:Fringe physics
1174:scientific peer review
1029:That's a good moveĀ :)
833:spelled his name with
695:English-speaking world
570:but doesn't ref Heim!
351:Category:Pseudoscience
220:The project is now at
1722:Philosophy of science
1690:New & interesting
1424:Aberration of gravity
1315:talk:uranium trioxide
1182:Knowledge peer review
347:Category:Protoscience
42:of past discussions.
1459:William M. Connolley
707:You know, we have a
583:William M. Connolley
572:William M. Connolley
499:Theory of everything
373:William M. Connolley
1476:nuclearphysics-stub
1453:. Its described as
945:I find the section
922:See my comments at
405:but would focus on
124:See my comments at
1815:Christopher Thomas
1763:Quantum philosophy
1696:Quantum philosophy
1681:Christopher Thomas
1671:Christopher Thomas
1645:http://wikinfo.org
1636:Christopher Thomas
1596:explain them that
1504:List of physicists
1292:chemist needs help
1283:Christopher Thomas
1216:reaction (physics)
1190:article assessment
911:Christopher Thomas
877:physical cosmology
871:page? I wrote the
804:Christopher Thomas
760:Christopher Thomas
730:Christopher Thomas
365:intelligent design
265:http://www.doi.org
208:add your name here
182:prisoner's dilemma
1701:Quantum mysticism
1614:m/z misconception
1606:m/z misconception
1598:mass spectrometer
1120:New stub template
856:
504:Eugene Podkletnov
494:Selector calculus
433:Fringe geophysics
335:Afshar experiment
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1824:
1480:
1474:
1385:Speed of gravity
1304:uranium trioxide
1300:Depleted uranium
1158:
1131:
893:I put up a page
850:
639:in the sense of
529:Klaus Hasselmann
296:Brewster's angle
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1807:
1692:
1662:
1620:page. Thanks,
1593:
1574:
1562:
1542:be merged with
1536:
1507:
1478:
1472:
1469:
1447:
1405:Sergei Kopeikin
1388:
1294:
1254:
1212:
1170:
1156:
1129:
1122:
1096:
1044:
1001:
978:Noise pollution
943:
891:
865:
819:
687:
663:
489:Higgsless model
466:
320:
197:
159:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1830:
1806:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1772:
1766:
1765:
1758:
1757:
1743:
1742:
1732:
1731:
1704:
1703:
1698:
1691:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1573:
1570:
1561:
1554:
1544:Drag (physics)
1535:
1532:Drag (physics)
1528:
1527:
1526:
1511:Alison Chaiken
1506:
1501:
1468:
1465:
1446:
1443:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1416:User:Kopeikins
1401:User:Kopeikins
1387:
1382:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1342:
1341:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1278:
1277:
1253:
1250:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1211:
1208:
1169:
1164:
1148:
1147:
1142:Alison Chaiken
1121:
1118:
1104:these criteria
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1076:
1075:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1024:
1023:
1000:
993:
992:
991:
986:Alison Chaiken
968:Alison Chaiken
942:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
928:Alison Chaiken
917:
916:
890:
887:
869:Talk:Cosmology
864:
861:
818:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
792:
791:
768:
767:
766:
765:
745:articles. ---
738:
737:
736:
735:
719:
718:
686:
683:
662:
656:
655:
654:
631:
630:
619:
618:
600:longer version
595:Physics Essays
590:
589:
578:
538:
537:
531:
526:
521:
516:
501:
496:
491:
486:
481:
476:
465:
458:
448:
447:
442:
429:
428:
427:
426:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:controversies.
395:Fringe physics
380:
379:
319:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
300:Alison Chaiken
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
255:
254:
253:
252:
247:Alison Chaiken
235:
234:
196:
193:
192:
191:
167:
166:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
136:
135:
130:Alison Chaiken
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1829:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1812:
1805:
1796:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1741:
1738:
1737:60.41.187.156
1734:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1667:
1653:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1586:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1575:
1569:
1567:
1559:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:Drag equation
1533:
1525:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1477:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1417:
1414:In addition,
1412:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1354:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1244:220.237.34.36
1236:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1220:220.237.34.36
1217:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1154:
1146:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1108:Good articles
1105:
1101:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
998:
990:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
969:
965:
961:
957:
952:
948:
941:
932:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
912:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
896:
886:
885:
882:
878:
874:
870:
860:
859:
855:
854:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
817:
808:
805:
801:
796:
795:
794:
793:
790:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
773:
764:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
744:
734:
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
720:
717:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
682:
681:
678:
673:
672:
669:
660:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
633:
632:
629:
626:
621:
620:
617:
614:
610:
606:
601:
596:
592:
591:
587:
584:
579:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
543:
535:
532:
530:
527:
525:
522:
520:
517:
515:
513:
510:
505:
502:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
479:Burkhard Heim
477:
475:
472:
471:
470:
463:
457:
456:
453:
446:
443:
441:
438:
437:
436:
434:
425:
422:
417:
416:
415:
414:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:Pseudophysics
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
325:
317:
304:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
279:
276:
271:
266:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
251:
248:
244:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
230:
227:
226:Laura Scudder
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
190:
187:
183:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
164:
163:
162:
156:
147:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
113:
110:A must-read:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1808:
1804:Cycle theory
1705:
1663:
1594:
1563:
1556:Peer review
1537:
1508:
1470:
1454:
1448:
1433:
1413:
1399:
1389:
1368:
1359:
1332:carbon black
1319:
1312:
1308:
1298:
1295:
1255:
1241:
1213:
1179:
1171:
1149:
1123:
1097:
1045:
1005:
1002:
944:
892:
866:
851:
838:
834:
831:Ralph Kronig
820:
769:
739:
694:
688:
685:Freelunchers
674:
664:
645:true soliton
644:
608:
603:
594:
548:
539:
506:
467:
449:
432:
430:
406:
398:
394:
391:Protophysics
390:
369:aetherometry
328:
321:
243:Robert Dicke
198:
168:
160:
109:
78:
43:
37:
1752:J S Lundeen
1726:StuTheSheep
1643:Post it to
1558:Dark matter
1232:Count Iblis
1083:Count Iblis
1056:Count Iblis
1031:Count Iblis
1007:Count Iblis
982:User:Anlace
960:User:Anlace
743:Heim theory
609:prima facie
555:Heim theory
551:User:Hdeasy
474:Heim theory
462:Heim theory
353:. Ideas?
331:Bios theory
275:J S Lundeen
155:Game theory
143:J S Lundeen
36:This is an
1582:Iantresman
1409:User:Tomvf
1371:User:Stone
659:Hyperspace
647:issue. ---
519:Hyperspace
440:Georeactor
435:category:
341:and maybe
98:ArchiveĀ 10
1783:GangofOne
1649:GangofOne
1548:JabberWok
956:Spin wave
951:Spin wave
940:Spin wave
873:Cosmology
863:Cosmology
691:Testatika
534:Telepolis
171:JabberWok
90:ArchiveĀ 7
85:ArchiveĀ 6
79:ArchiveĀ 5
73:ArchiveĀ 4
68:ArchiveĀ 3
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1566:see here
1560:underway
1487:WP:WSS/P
1242:Thanks.
1210:Reaction
1081:Thanks!
1052:DAMA/NaI
999:underway
637:solitons
200:ragesoss
106:New page
900:DV8 2XL
407:current
39:archive
1632:WP:NOR
1622:Kehrli
1201:SCZenz
1112:Shanel
1018:SCZenz
837:, not
605:Model.
484:Metron
343:Emergy
1792:Karol
1708:Karol
1534:merge
1521:Karol
1376:linas
1362:Stone
1350:Stone
1336:linas
1322:Stone
1272:linas
1262:linas
1197:Quill
1194:Oldak
1070:linas
786:linas
713:linas
393:, or
355:linas
224:. ā
212:linas
186:linas
116:Karol
16:<
1666:here
1495:Alai
1481:and
1302:and
1050:and
1048:SIMP
995:VFD
926:.
881:Joke
853:talk
847:Angr
825:and
1618:AfD
1610:AfD
1602:m/q
1485:on
1435:---
1153:Ton
1126:Ton
984:.
980:by
661:AfD
641:KdV
623:---
419:---
318:???
206:;
114::)
1669:--
1568:.
1479:}}
1473:{{
1437:CH
1411:.
1392:CH
1360:--
1317:!
1206:)
1188:,
1184:,
1172:A
1068:.
909:--
776:CH
758:--
747:CH
699:CH
677:CH
668:CH
649:CH
625:CH
613:CH
559:CH
542:CH
509:CH
452:CH
421:CH
389:,
333:,
128:.
94:ā
64:ā
1157:e
1130:e
849:/
839:ƶ
835:o
798:(
588:.
577:.
514:)
378:.
229:ā
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.