190:
321:
311:
290:
644:... The term "well known" here begs the question "by whom?". It is true that the book is well known by relativists but it is false that it is well known by the general public. Why unnecessarily introduce a fuzzy term with questionable encyclopedic value? The term also seems to have been used to emphasis that the book is important but the very fact the book has an article means the book is notable by our guidelines; so in that sense the phrasing is redundant.
180:
149:
83:
638:
think this grammar issue should be clear to you both upon further reflection. To satisfy all, perhaps writing "Gravitation is a well-known physics book on
Einstein's theory of gravity..." is an acceptable solution. (Here I've also used the word "book" instead of "compendium", which I think is awkwardly used. Almost all physics/math books I think would qualify as "compendiums" under this usage but nobody talks this way.)
73:
55:
468:, I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe you just had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing an IP editor remove information. If so, please be more careful. While you both seem to be experienced editors, it is possible you are missing some key ideas from our content and editing guidelines that prevented you from seeing the rationale of these edits. Regardless, JRSpriggs, remember to
24:
517:"an example of how the book can be cited" contains all together the information about the book. People can refer to this instantly. Normally the refs are left to the end in a bibliography section, but this article is about the book itself. There is no reason to tuck it away at the end out of view in the references section.
597:
The citation was originally given as a reference, but someone complained that it was not a source about the book, but the book itself. However, I wanted to keep it in the article because many of the people who might read this article are likely to want to use this book as a reference. Why not make it
696:
Let's talk about what's disruptive. "JRSpriggs" has reverted my clearly described changes four times, three times without any explanation, and twice with personal attacks in the edit summary. "Maschen" has reverted my changes twice, both times without any explanation. Undoing edits without having
674:
The way I see it, we have two people in solid agreement over these four issues while the two others seem only mildly interested in opposing one or two of the changes. Perhaps the cleanest way forward is to make the changes, and then discuss individual issues in detail if either JRSpriggs or
Maschen
637:
physics, which is entirely different. While natural language has some leeway and ambiguous semantics, it's pretty clear here the phrase tends to suggest the book is literally contained within the subject matter of physics, which is nonsense. Both JRSpriggs and
Maschen have an interest in logic so I
1701:
I also disagree with the inclusion of the table of contents. It's not something we ordinarily include in an article about a book, and it's not very useful for our readers. You should not repeatedly reinsert content in an article over the objections of multiple people (it's called edit warring, and
913:
inserted quotations from other authors about their opinions of the book. I have tried to be neutral and balanced giving some with slightly negative/neutral thoughts, but as expected most are positive. More could be added. The quotations were in the citations, but I took them out so readers can see
664:
section, which clear makes no sense. But no matter... it simply should not be here by our usual guidelines. All content on
Knowledge should be verifiable but it's unlikely we can find sources to cite the citation itself, so it fails at least part of our usual litmus tests for inclusion. That said,
593:
The "main text" consists of the part of the book which is not in the boxes. Someone who wants a less thorough understanding can simply skip over the boxes (reading only the main text) and the book still makes sense. The division into main text and boxes occurs in both the first (regular) track and
977:
the citation from the lead, and put it into a separate section where editions, reprints, and translations into other languages can be described and listed. I did want it to stay near the beginning, either the lead or first section, but it will keep being removed and the edit wars will be ongoing.
486:
Thank you very much indeed for your thoughts, Jason Quinn. I wait to hear what the reverting users have to say. In the meantime, let me just say how nice it is to read that someone actually looked at what I did. If my tone above was not very convivial, it's because here as do often, it was clear
1629:
It is not, but it is still an encyclopedia. So we are free to include any relevant information. This is only a table of contents. It contains no sections or subsections, only the chapters and appendices. By your reasoning, one might as well delete the whole page because any information about the
843:
was that "JRSpriggs" made a highly insulting personal attack rather than (as he should have) apologise for his disruptive editing and discuss the content. I am complaining not about the content here but about your conduct, which fell and continues to fall below the standards required. If you
614:@Maschen. You are right that the IP's could have avoided those phrases. Their frustration is completely understandable, however, and they did everybody the courtesy of initiating a discussion. So let's all agree to forget about the incivility, move on, and discuss the content of the changes.
460:". All your reasoning appears to be valid to me. I analyzed the diffs in the edit history even before I finished reading your message above and I independently arrived at the same justifications for your edits as you gave so I concur that the edits seemed fairly obvious self-explanatory.
521:
All of these are encyclopedic. But given the IPs extreme obsession of fighting over the silly removal of useful/correct information, on top of his rude accusations to others like "rude disruptive behavior" and "hard of thinking", I give up. An apology to the IP is not called for.
421:
I made some obviously necessary and utterly uncontroversial edits, which have been reverted for no sensible reason. It seems scarcely believable that someone would question the necessity of the changes. Nevertheless, for the hard of thinking, here are explanations of the changes.
717:. There every volume of the course has its title, editions, publication dates, ISBN, and all. Should all of those be deleted? Likewise, should detailed information collected in one place for immediate reference, say infoboxes for chemicals (like the table at the beginning of
650:... Even just "thorough" would unnecessarily adds a layer of subjectivity to a sentence where it's not needed but "already thorough" strengthens the subjectivity. "Thorough" according to who? Research relativists wouldn't call the book "thorough" these days. Maybe it
926:, which were chaos on my part, the explanation (not excuse) was that my computer was slowing down and it was agonizingly difficult to edit and I thought Foster & Nightingale had been removed but it hadn't, it was just in the wrong place. Anyway its sorted now.
791:
that the information was useful (hence reverting your edits), and the reasons I had would not fit into the edit summary. The fact that you continue to complain (intersecting my comments in the process) illustrates childish opinionated defensiveness on
426:"In physics..." This formulation is typically used when introducing a concept with a specific meaning in a specific field. It does not make sense when introducing a book. It's a book. It's not a book only when thinking about physics. It's a book.
508:"In physics" is to state the subject. Every article should state the subject(s), and better yet followed by subdivisions (general relativity, quantum theory, whatever). Is this a book aimed for applied mathematicians? Experimental astronomers?
472:, especially worthwhile when an editor may be demonstrating keener editorial judgment. I'm certainly willing to hear counterarguments to 82.132.227.38's reasoning but those changes look like they ought to be made, and perhaps apologies given.
917:
added a "popular culture" section, since this book has a very nice example appearing in a recent film (Interstellar) which actually uses GR to make the special effects as realistic as possible, and one of the authors was a consultant for the
725:) be deleted? Simply stating the information is not unencyclopedic, and deferring to guidelines saying the info should not be there even when beneficial is unhelpful. Yes, ignoring the rules when common sense is enough is better.
429:"well-known" - to people who have heard of it, maybe, but they aren't actually many people at all. And who ever asked them? We simply do not use such language. It expresses an opinion which adds nothing useful to the article.
1656:
I think that's great if people find
Knowledge useful as a teaching or learning tool, however the ultimate purpose of Knowledge is to present facts, not teach. I still fail to see the encyclopedic value of the section.
844:
actually had a reason to undo my edits, you were obliged to explain what it was. If it was too long to fit in an edit summary, then you say "see talk" and explain it there. Not explaining a revert is not acceptable.
1630:
book, from scope to reception, could appear in a shopping guide. Remember, Knowledge can be used as a learning tool. It may not be the best, but it is highly accessible. So why not make it as useful as possible?
1588:
When talking about the book, including its table of contents is a good idea. It is also useful for those thinking about whether or not they want to purchase the book (assuming it is not required for a course).
1560:
insists on keeping the section "Table of contents (2017 Edition)". This section is just a list of the table of contents, with zero editorial commentary or significance, and has almost no encyclopedic value. I
514:"already thorough main text", I'm indifferent to this, but it is a "thorough" text because it covers a lot in detail, and it is a "main" text since so many others refer to it and it is a definitive reference.
1457:
1752:
Personally I think the table of contents should be removed, because the notion that this is something an encyclopaedia article should provide is absurd. But I'm afraid I see a consensus against this view.
1529:
1278:
1702:
it's disruptive). Four people have objected: myself, Sro23, and the IPs 193.177.201.226 and 178.106.252.217. Please don't re-add it again unless you can get consensus to do so on the talk page.—
845:
1357:
377:
1852:, your recent edit removing content via WP:RELTIME, which doesn't apply at all to the content you removed. But it debatably isn't encyclopedic. Why do you not consider this encyclopedic?
914:
them instantly instead of hiding them in the references section, and blended them into prose and a new "criticism" section. A sample of other popular books which cite MTW are also given.
402:
It would be good to add a reference to the original
Physics Today review (if one exists). If anybody has access to a library, please look up the month/year, issue number, reviewer, etc.
1909:
258:
159:
693:
Sure, moving on, rewording or permuting sentences/phrases to retain the same information is fair enough and I don't object. But the repeated deletion was disruptive.
511:"Well-known" in the subject stated, because in physics it is a well-known widely used book. The term "well-known" is set by the context (physics, not all knowledge).
1566:
1924:
1381:
1302:
1167:
1163:
1149:
761:
A list of editions of a book is entirely unencyclopaedic and should certainly be deleted. Info boxes containing encyclopaedic information should not be deleted.
246:
271:
163:
1788:
454:
Your edits were very good ones. Assuming you were the same person at all IPs, you certainly did not deserve an edit summary saying the material had been "
1939:
367:
1687:
Is there a significant difference between presenting facts and teaching? Isn't one way to present facts about a book is to give its table of contents?
654:
thorough to students but there's just far too much sub-subjects missing for it to "cover it all", which is kind of what "thorough" may suggest to some.
1904:
236:
1230:
1929:
343:
189:
1934:
1834:
No. It is not promotional, it is just a simple statement of fact. Also the vandal is removing important information on how to cite the book.
1914:
929:
It would be nice, if possible, to know about the editorial development, and the history of the book's creation and publication in general.
697:
the basic courtesy to explain why is rude and disruptive; doing so while making personal attacks as well is extremely childish in addition.
1894:
1772:
1534:
488:
440:
103:
1098:
1068:
849:
762:
698:
212:
1899:
1145:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
334:
295:
1405:
1233:, by analogy with electrodynamics, the following formula (43.29) is obtained for the fluctuations of the gravitational potential:
107:
1889:
1478:
1089:
1044:
1030:
this article, deleting things he/she does not find interesting or useful, but others may. I will not be adding them back.
992:
946:
883:
typography, someone reading may have an interest about the fonts used but not know the name of the sans serif font (it is
817:
739:
714:
567:
536:
203:
154:
1135:
1919:
1240:
1210:
35:
432:"already thorough main text" - a grotesque violation of NPOV. We do not judge the thoroughness of the book's contents.
97:
60:
1307:
1166:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1776:
1538:
492:
444:
1201:
1127:
1067:
Try reading the edit summaries. If you still can't understand why these edits were necessary, try asking.
905:
598:
easy for them to do so by giving the form of the citation instead of making them work it out the hard way?
1824:
1072:
908:(linearized gravity is discussed in depth, including gravitational waves, but there isn't anything on GEM)
766:
702:
1849:
1871:
1815:
Doesn't "widely adopted", "highly valued", and mentioning specific editions strike anyone else as being
1387:
1185:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1173:
680:
477:
407:
41:
1126:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
320:
1036:
984:
938:
809:
731:
559:
528:
111:
660:... The bibliographic material. The person who originally removed it was me. It was originally in a
629:... The phrase "In physics," should simply not be there. Grammatically, the phrase is introducing a
23:
1839:
840:
788:
603:
342:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
211:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1119:
900:
since it is stated the book covers much of GR, for neutrality we should include a topic which is
326:
1170:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
310:
289:
1186:
803:
Later I might try to tweak the article, without inserting the citation even though its useful.
1820:
1721:, so their objections don't count. But that's still 2 editors against inclusion versus 1 for.
1707:
1692:
1635:
1594:
1468:
1053:
1001:
955:
826:
748:
576:
545:
1853:
932:
These changes qualify as encyclopedic, but just in case others object they can say so here.
676:
473:
403:
1386:
However, the analogy of geometrodynamics with electrodynamics is erroneous (because of the
1193:
1800:
1726:
1718:
1662:
1612:
1578:
797:
115:
439:
Reverting these obviously necessary changes was utterly pointless and highly disruptive.
1607:
But
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a shopping guide.
1835:
1816:
1152:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
599:
461:
195:
1398:) that the formula for the gravitational potential fluctuations should have the form:
1366:
1287:
1192:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1136:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160202083527/http://www.sky-watch.com/books/misner1.html
1883:
1792:
1754:
1549:
1360:
1027:
722:
666:
469:
1771:
is in both camps, I can't imagine, but either way it's a majority for including it.
1556:
Sigh. There's been a slow-moving edit war occurring on this page for some time now.
82:
1703:
1688:
1631:
1590:
1570:
1557:
1391:
1031:
979:
933:
804:
726:
554:
523:
465:
88:
1767:) have both added it. So that makes 3 users adding it, 2 removing it. Quite why
1159:
718:
339:
179:
148:
1796:
1768:
1761:
1722:
1658:
1608:
1574:
1464:
1158:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1139:
316:
185:
78:
1875:
1843:
1828:
1804:
1780:
1730:
1711:
1696:
1666:
1639:
1616:
1598:
1582:
1542:
1215:
1102:
1076:
1061:
1009:
963:
853:
834:
770:
756:
706:
684:
607:
584:
496:
481:
448:
411:
1791:. Like I already said, in those diffs, we were reverting a banned user per
873:
1569:, but they remain unconvinced and continue to re-add the section. Pinging
872:
To summarize the recent additions I have made to the article (here is the
72:
54:
1472:
891:
665:
the idea for its inclusion has some merits; so maybe it's a case where
208:
102:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
1229:", and in § 44.2, p.1200, of readers are misleading. Indeed, in the
487:
that people were not actually looking at the edit before reverting.
887:
1225:
It is necessary to note in the article that in § 43.4, p.1192 "
841:
user talk:JRSpriggs#Reverting for no reason is highly disruptive
789:
user talk:JRSpriggs#Reverting for no reason is highly disruptive
1717:
I should note the IP's are actually sockpuppets of banned user
435:"an example of how the book can be cited" is not encyclopaedic.
17:
1452:{\displaystyle \Delta g\sim {\frac {\ell _{P}^{\,2}}{L^{2}}}}
590:
I agree with
Maschen. Let me just clarify a couple of points.
1130:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1524:{\displaystyle \Delta g\Delta L^{2}\geq \ell _{P}^{\,2}}
1765:
1758:
1562:
1123:
1085:
1023:
974:
923:
713:
About the citation, which is the special case, look at
619:
456:
721:), or psychological disorders (like the beginning of
1481:
1408:
1369:
1310:
1290:
1243:
922:
For those looking in the edit history confused about
338:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
207:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1273:{\displaystyle \Delta g\sim {\frac {\ell _{P}}{L}}}
1162:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1523:
1451:
1375:
1351:
1296:
1272:
1811:The IPs removing content appear to have a point
1026:onwards by the same/another IP who effectively
1022:Yet more annoying deletions have occurred from
114:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1352:{\displaystyle \ell _{P}=1.6\times 10^{-33}cm}
1148:This message was posted before February 2018.
897:retaining and adding more on sign conventions
623:and its components have been numbered above.
8:
617:@All. The edit initiating the discussion is
1789:Knowledge:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP
1140:http://www.sky-watch.com/books/misner1.html
1910:B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
1396:Gravitational fields and quantum mechanics
1118:I have just modified one external link on
1088:for similar behaviour on another article.
880:about the book itself, particularly about
787:It was stated plainly and early enough on
284:
143:
110:. To use this banner, please refer to the
49:
1513:
1508:
1495:
1480:
1441:
1429:
1424:
1418:
1407:
1368:
1334:
1315:
1309:
1289:
1259:
1253:
1242:
1565:them such a list should not be included
796:part. You have "won" this argument, now
417:Disruptive editors pointlessly reverting
108:discuss matters related to book articles
1573:who seemed to share my view last year.
1514:
1430:
286:
145:
116:relevant guideline for the type of work
51:
21:
846:2001:4C50:19E:EF00:C180:2C90:9A91:3A01
553:21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Amended
1925:B-Class physics publications articles
7:
332:This article is within the scope of
201:This article is within the scope of
94:This article is within the scope of
1463:This formula also follows from the
978:Hopefully this satisfies everyone.
40:It is of interest to the following
1488:
1482:
1409:
1390:). A detailed analysis shows (see
1244:
633:of physics. Instead, this book is
14:
1940:Mid-priority mathematics articles
1122:. Please take a moment to review
868:Summary of new edits, more to add
839:The only thing that was plain on
352:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1304:is the gravitational potential,
355:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
319:
309:
288:
188:
178:
147:
81:
71:
53:
22:
1905:Mid-importance physics articles
372:This article has been rated as
241:This article has been rated as
1787:Struck comment by banned user
1:
1930:Physics publications articles
1567:per the Wikiproject guideline
1383:is the region of dimension.
1010:12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
964:22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
854:13:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
835:10:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
771:06:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
757:20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
715:Course of Theoretical Physics
707:06:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
685:18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
675:wants re-inclusion for them.
608:16:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
585:11:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
497:21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
482:19:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
449:18:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
346:and see a list of open tasks.
269:This article is supported by
256:This article is supported by
221:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
215:and see a list of open tasks.
1935:B-Class mathematics articles
1552:and slow motion edit warring
1394:, Nuovo Cim. 7, 215 (1958).
594:the second (advanced) track.
224:Template:WikiProject Physics
1915:B-Class relativity articles
1471:uncertainty relation (see
1018:Yet more annoying deletions
412:17:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
124:Knowledge:WikiProject Books
1956:
1895:WikiProject Books articles
1844:21:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
1829:17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
1543:07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
1216:11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
1179:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1115:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1103:19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
1077:18:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
1062:11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
247:project's importance scale
127:Template:WikiProject Books
1731:18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1712:11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1697:02:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1667:02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1640:01:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1617:01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1599:01:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
1583:01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
876:at the time of writing):
371:
304:
268:
259:the relativity task force
255:
240:
173:
66:
48:
1900:B-Class physics articles
1876:17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1805:21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1781:21:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
1227:Fluctuations in geometry
378:project's priority scale
1111:External links modified
906:gravitoelectromagnetism
335:WikiProject Mathematics
1525:
1453:
1377:
1353:
1298:
1274:
272:Publications Taskforce
30:This article is rated
1890:B-Class Book articles
1526:
1473:here, chapter 5, p.12
1454:
1388:equivalence principle
1378:
1354:
1299:
1275:
457:thoughtlessly removed
1479:
1406:
1367:
1308:
1288:
1241:
1160:regular verification
504:Replying to the IP:
398:Physics Today review
358:mathematics articles
1920:Relativity articles
1520:
1436:
1150:After February 2018
1084:This user has been
973:I have reluctantly
204:WikiProject Physics
1817:overly promotional
1521:
1515:
1504:
1459:
1449:
1431:
1420:
1373:
1349:
1294:
1280:
1270:
1204:InternetArchiveBot
1155:InternetArchiveBot
1120:Gravitation (book)
327:Mathematics portal
36:content assessment
1447:
1402:
1376:{\displaystyle L}
1359:is the so-called
1297:{\displaystyle g}
1268:
1237:
1180:
470:assume good faith
392:
391:
388:
387:
384:
383:
283:
282:
279:
278:
142:
141:
138:
137:
98:WikiProject Books
1947:
1868:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1856:
1530:
1528:
1527:
1522:
1519:
1512:
1500:
1499:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1450:
1448:
1446:
1445:
1435:
1428:
1419:
1382:
1380:
1379:
1374:
1358:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1342:
1341:
1320:
1319:
1303:
1301:
1300:
1295:
1279:
1277:
1276:
1271:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1254:
1214:
1205:
1178:
1177:
1156:
669:would make sense
667:Ignore All Rules
622:
459:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
329:
324:
323:
313:
306:
305:
300:
292:
285:
229:
228:
227:physics articles
225:
222:
219:
198:
193:
192:
182:
175:
174:
169:
166:
151:
144:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
104:join the project
91:
86:
85:
75:
68:
67:
57:
50:
33:
27:
26:
18:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1880:
1879:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1857:
1854:
1813:
1554:
1491:
1477:
1476:
1437:
1404:
1403:
1365:
1364:
1330:
1311:
1306:
1305:
1286:
1285:
1255:
1239:
1238:
1223:
1208:
1203:
1171:
1164:have permission
1154:
1128:this simple FaQ
1113:
1094:
1058:
1020:
1006:
971:
960:
924:these two edits
874:current version
870:
831:
753:
662:Further reading
618:
581:
550:
455:
419:
400:
357:
354:
351:
348:
347:
325:
318:
298:
226:
223:
220:
217:
216:
194:
187:
167:
157:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
87:
80:
34:on Knowledge's
31:
12:
11:
5:
1953:
1951:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1917:
1912:
1907:
1902:
1897:
1892:
1882:
1881:
1847:
1846:
1812:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1602:
1601:
1553:
1546:
1518:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1461:
1460:
1444:
1440:
1434:
1427:
1423:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1372:
1348:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1293:
1282:
1281:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1222:
1219:
1198:
1197:
1190:
1143:
1142:
1134:Added archive
1112:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1090:
1056:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1004:
970:
967:
958:
920:
919:
915:
911:
910:
909:
898:
895:
869:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
829:
801:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
751:
711:
710:
709:
688:
687:
672:
671:
670:
655:
645:
639:
615:
611:
610:
595:
591:
579:
548:
519:
518:
515:
512:
509:
502:
501:
500:
499:
437:
436:
433:
430:
427:
418:
415:
399:
396:
394:
390:
389:
386:
385:
382:
381:
370:
364:
363:
361:
344:the discussion
331:
330:
314:
302:
301:
293:
281:
280:
277:
276:
267:
264:
263:
254:
251:
250:
243:Mid-importance
239:
233:
232:
230:
213:the discussion
200:
199:
196:Physics portal
183:
171:
170:
168:Mid‑importance
152:
140:
139:
136:
135:
133:
93:
92:
76:
64:
63:
58:
46:
45:
39:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1952:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1911:
1908:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1898:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1885:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1851:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:46.233.112.99
1770:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1755:User:Favonian
1749:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1551:
1547:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:178.120.10.65
1532:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1485:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1442:
1438:
1432:
1425:
1421:
1415:
1412:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1384:
1370:
1362:
1361:Planck length
1346:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1316:
1312:
1291:
1265:
1260:
1256:
1250:
1247:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1220:
1218:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1151:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1093:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1017:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
990:
989:
983:
982:
976:
968:
966:
965:
962:
961:
954:
952:
949:
945:
944:
943:
937:
936:
930:
927:
925:
916:
912:
907:
903:
899:
896:
893:
889:
886:
882:
881:
879:
878:
877:
875:
867:
855:
851:
847:
842:
838:
837:
836:
833:
832:
825:
823:
820:
816:
815:
814:
808:
807:
802:
799:
795:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
755:
754:
747:
745:
742:
738:
737:
736:
730:
729:
724:
723:schizophrenia
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
673:
668:
663:
659:
656:
653:
649:
646:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
624:
621:
616:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
596:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
582:
575:
573:
570:
566:
565:
564:
558:
557:
552:
551:
544:
542:
539:
535:
534:
533:
527:
526:
516:
513:
510:
507:
506:
505:
498:
494:
490:
489:82.132.227.38
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
453:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
441:82.132.227.38
434:
431:
428:
425:
424:
423:
416:
414:
413:
409:
405:
397:
395:
379:
375:
369:
366:
365:
362:
345:
341:
337:
336:
328:
322:
317:
315:
312:
308:
307:
303:
297:
294:
291:
287:
274:
273:
266:
265:
261:
260:
253:
252:
248:
244:
238:
235:
234:
231:
214:
210:
206:
205:
197:
191:
186:
184:
181:
177:
176:
172:
165:
161:
156:
153:
150:
146:
134:
130:Book articles
117:
113:
112:documentation
109:
105:
101:
100:
99:
90:
84:
79:
77:
74:
70:
69:
65:
62:
59:
56:
52:
47:
43:
37:
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
1848:
1821:Skywatcher68
1814:
1751:
1750:
1748:
1716:
1558:User:Nerd271
1555:
1550:WP:OWNership
1533:
1462:
1395:
1385:
1283:
1226:
1224:
1202:
1199:
1174:source check
1153:
1147:
1144:
1117:
1114:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1081:
1069:77.47.80.202
1054:
1048:
1045:
1039:
1037:
1032:
1021:
1013:
1002:
996:
993:
987:
985:
980:
972:
956:
950:
947:
941:
939:
934:
931:
928:
921:
901:
884:
871:
827:
821:
818:
812:
810:
805:
793:
763:77.47.80.202
749:
743:
740:
734:
732:
727:
699:77.47.80.202
661:
657:
651:
647:
641:
634:
630:
626:
577:
571:
568:
562:
560:
555:
546:
540:
537:
531:
529:
524:
520:
503:
438:
420:
401:
393:
374:Mid-priority
373:
333:
299:Mid‑priority
270:
257:
242:
202:
164:Publications
96:
95:
89:Books portal
42:WikiProjects
15:
1548:Persistent
719:nitric acid
677:Jason Quinn
474:Jason Quinn
404:Jason Quinn
349:Mathematics
340:mathematics
296:Mathematics
1884:Categories
1769:User:Sro23
1762:User:Sro23
1211:Report bug
160:Relativity
1836:JRSpriggs
1469:Rosenfeld
1194:this tool
1187:this tool
1024:this edit
904:covered:
798:let it go
600:JRSpriggs
462:JRSpriggs
1719:WP:BFKIP
1563:informed
1392:T. Regge
1200:Cheers.—
969:Citation
631:subtopic
620:this one
1704:Diannaa
1689:Nerd271
1632:Nerd271
1591:Nerd271
1571:Diannaa
1221:Comment
1124:my edit
1092:Fortuna
1086:blocked
975:removed
892:univers
658:Issue 4
648:Issue 3
642:Issue 2
627:Issue 1
466:Maschen
376:on the
245:on the
218:Physics
209:Physics
155:Physics
32:B-class
1793:WP:BMB
1760:) and
890:, but
38:scale.
1864:stuff
1819:? –
1797:Sro23
1723:Sro23
1659:Sro23
1609:Sro23
1575:Sro23
1475:):
1284:Here
918:film.
888:arial
652:looks
635:about
121:Books
61:Books
1872:talk
1840:talk
1825:talk
1801:talk
1777:talk
1727:talk
1708:talk
1693:talk
1663:talk
1636:talk
1613:talk
1595:talk
1579:talk
1539:talk
1465:Bohr
1231:book
1082:Note
1073:talk
1028:owns
850:talk
794:your
767:talk
703:talk
681:talk
604:talk
493:talk
478:talk
464:and
445:talk
408:talk
106:and
1858:can
1325:1.6
1168:RfC
1138:to
1057:τlk
1005:τlk
959:τlk
902:not
885:not
830:τlk
752:τlk
580:τlk
549:τlk
368:Mid
237:Mid
1886::
1874:)
1861:do
1850:IP
1842:)
1827:)
1803:)
1795:.
1779:)
1729:)
1710:)
1695:)
1665:)
1638:)
1615:)
1597:)
1581:)
1541:)
1531:.
1506:ℓ
1502:≥
1489:Δ
1483:Δ
1422:ℓ
1416:∼
1410:Δ
1363:,
1339:33
1336:−
1332:10
1328:×
1313:ℓ
1257:ℓ
1251:∼
1245:Δ
1181:.
1176:}}
1172:{{
1075:)
894:),
852:)
769:)
705:)
683:)
606:)
495:)
480:)
447:)
410:)
162:/
158::
1870:(
1867:!
1855:I
1838:(
1823:(
1799:(
1775:(
1764:(
1757:(
1725:(
1706:(
1691:(
1661:(
1634:(
1611:(
1593:(
1577:(
1537:(
1517:2
1510:P
1497:2
1493:L
1486:g
1467:-
1443:2
1439:L
1433:2
1426:P
1413:g
1371:L
1347:m
1344:c
1322:=
1317:P
1292:g
1266:L
1261:P
1248:g
1213:)
1209:(
1196:.
1189:.
1071:(
1055:И
1051:ε
1049:ħ
1046:c
1040:Ŝ
1038:∧
1033:M
1003:И
999:ε
997:ħ
994:c
988:Ŝ
986:∧
981:M
957:И
953:ε
951:ħ
948:c
942:Ŝ
940:∧
935:M
848:(
828:И
824:ε
822:ħ
819:c
813:Ŝ
811:∧
806:M
800:.
765:(
750:И
746:ε
744:ħ
741:c
735:Ŝ
733:∧
728:M
701:(
679:(
602:(
578:И
574:ε
572:ħ
569:c
563:Ŝ
561:∧
556:M
547:И
543:ε
541:ħ
538:c
532:Ŝ
530:∧
525:M
491:(
476:(
443:(
406:(
380:.
275:.
262:.
249:.
118:.
44::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
