« first day (1461 days earlier)      last day (1752 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

12:01 AM
oh well, I'm really going to leave now
Leave you in the midst of confusion
mysteriously vanishing into thin air
 
12:45 AM
good night
 
1:31 AM
@dmckee: is a comment like this considered spam? Or are we okay with things of that nature?
 
@KyleKanos The moderators (or at the very least this moderator) would be interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion on the matter, both as it pertains to a single such comment and to a pattern and practice of leaving such comments.
I'd like to reserve my own opinion for the time being.
 
It's not a single one, there's lots: physics.stackexchange.com/users/2751/…
 
1:48 AM
@DavidZ @dmckee why should linking to any external source where information of importance to a question be such as Wikipedia, Physics Forum, another SE page, or any other site be spam or otherwise inappropriate? Everybody gives such hints. Kyle targetting me explicitely seems a bit strange ...
 
Actually, the only reason I discovered your set of comments was because I was scrolling through your profile to see your closing queue. I have not really seen anyone posting to Physics Forum, though I would question that as well.
 
2:11 AM
Apart from linking to Wikipedia, the ArXiv, or any other source for useful information related to a question, I have indeed not infrequently seen comments saying that a (related or exactly the same) question has been answered Math SE, Physics Forum, Quora, MathOverflow, or whatelse. Your admitting that you are browsing my profile rather gives the impression that you are negatively personally biased against me and the spedific source I linked to.
I can do nothing about this but I rely on the mods being fair and not biased in the same way ...
 
2:41 AM
@Dilaton: I was browsing your profile for arguments that I will provide in response to your latest email, nothing more. That comment caught my eye and I questioned it. I am curious as to the opinion of the community about linking to non-SE sites for physics questions in general (e.g, quora, physics forums, PO). I've stated my issue with you, I continue to remain willfully ignorant of a site that allows less-than-nice behaviour from its users.
 
 
1 hour later…
4:01 AM
@KyleKanos let me just say that we mods have been aware of this for a while. I won't comment on this specific instance here, but like dmckee said, we'd be interested to know if anyone has input on how to handle links to other physics-related sites, and under what circumstances (if any) such links should be considered spam. Probably good material for a meta post.
 
 
1 hour later…
user54412
5:08 AM
@dmckee You know I really tried to dig up something on those dunes on Comet 67P. But all I learned was that I am way out of my league.
 
user54412
I must have skimmed over a dozen articles, with angles of repose and transverse fingering instabilities and boundary layers and sub-orbital low-g experiments.
 
user54412
But I couldn't find anything that dealt with the combination of granular flows that are gravitationally avalanching (as opposed to being forced by a fluid) in low-g settings in vacuum where a dune-like pattern arises.
 
5:23 AM
@ChrisWhite I think I jumped the gun with that bounty. Ideas should start pouring into arXiv at some point, but I was too soon. Have to pick one of the guesses, I suppose.
 
user54412
6:01 AM
@dmckee On the other hand, your initial skepticism on detecting exocomets may have been too pessimistic ;)
 
user54412
(though I would have fully agreed with that skepticism 2 years ago)
 
1:42 PM
Is there a scheduled chat session? To discuss what? I miss all chat sessions, hope to be online on this one.
 
It's a physics chat session, there's no specific restriction.
 
Hi ManishEarth
 
We still have a couple hours to go before it starts, right?
 
2:00 PM
0
Q: Delayed/absent mortarboard badge?

Rob JeffriesOn Nov 1st I was fortunate enough to earn 215 rep points (which was capped). I have not received a mortarboard badge for this. Anyone know why?

 
@DavidZ Starts in 2 hours
:O 73 people are registered
 
2:15 PM
@dmckee @DavidZ Last night I was discussing gravitational perturbation theory with ACuriousMind, and specifically how one can define a perturbation of the metric to be 'small.' Clearly, it's not enough to simply demand all components are less than the metric, since e.g. for Schwarzschild any off-diagonal component is large. So, I was wondering, what criteria do we consider to gauge whether a perturbation is 'small', or rather, how do we define such a notion?
 
@JamalS interesting question. Hm
 
@JamalS basically, much less than 1
Linearized gravity is an approximation scheme in general relativity in which the nonlinear contributions from the spacetime metric are ignored, simplifying the study of many problems while still producing useful approximate results. == The method == In linearized gravity the metric tensor, , of spacetime is treated as a sum of an exact solution of Einstein's equations (often Minkowski spacetime) and a perturbation . where is the nondynamical background metric that is being perturbed about, and represents the deviation of the true metric () from flat spacetime. The perturbation is treated using...
 
Suppose I had a metric which satisfied that criterion; couldn't I just perform a diffeomorphism and make it >1?
 
@DavidZ But a metric isn't a number that can be compared with 1...
 
I think he means |h_{\mu\nu}| << 1
 
2:23 PM
yeah
we did it that way too, but now that you mention it it does feel a bit iffy
 
The paper by RG arxiv.org/abs/1107.5821 examines perturbations of p-branes and black strings, and she mentions it's not enough to simply consider <1
 
@JamalS In a lot a contexts the question is "Does the series stay withing acceptable error bounds and the number of term you care to deal with?".
Which dumps a lot of work on the person asking the question. ::mad cackle::
 
@dmckee Bah. You and your pedagogical methods of making the student do everything
;P
 
But doesn't it not matter? A mathematical guy would like to define "small". In physics, couldn't you just work with whatever order you want given that you specify it. The credibility of your analysis will depend on it, fine. But we have a measure at least.
Bottom line, Can you not just parametrize your "smallness"?
 
@Cheeku o/
@Cheeku So to work with a first order perturbation, you first need the purturbation $h$ to be small
in GR you perturb the metric as $g_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}+ (higher order h terms)$
Even if you stick to first order, can you a priori say that the perturbation $h$ is a perturbation and not an...earthquakeification (for lack of a better term)
 
2:33 PM
There's a subtlety: any diffeomorphism of your metric will need to a perturbation proportional to the Lie derivative of the metric along that vector field, so when doing perturbation theory, you must check your perturbation is not pure gauge, but a real physical perturbation.
lead*
 
also that^
 
i.e. g_{\mu\nu} \to g_{\mu\nu} + 2\nabla_\mu v_\nu + \nabla_\nu v_\mu
 
Though if it's just a gauge not-really-a-perturbation, won't you just get no result?
 
Physically, yes - it doesn't make a difference.
By the way, why doesn't the chat render LaTeX?
Has anyone requested this feature in the past?
 
I thought it's just my internet that sucks!
 
2:36 PM
@JamalS yeah, it has been. There are userscripts
one sec
 
Does everybody else use the mathJax chrome plugin, or what?
 
4
Q: Google Chrome Chat MathJax Extension

David FreitagLove typesetting? Then i bet you know exactly what MathJax is, but if you don't already know, MathJax is a javascript-based implementation of LaTeX that is compatable with a few different sets of markup. MathJax is nothing new to the Exchange's chats, ManishEarth wrote a bookmarklet found here...

 
Thank you!
 
4
Q: MathJax in chat (ChatJax offshoot)

ManishEarthThis is an offshoot of ChatJax, which enables MathJax along with mhchem on chat. Copy the text below: javascript:(function(){if(window.MathJax===undefined){var%20script=document.createElement("script");script.type="text/javascript";script.src="https://d3eoax9i5htok0.cloudfront.net/mathjax/lat...

 
@dmckee As little as I may like such comments, I think it is not spam and should not be deleted - they are actually (mostly) linking to helpful information pertaining to the post. The coincidental promotion of PO is...unfortunate, but I believe that it does not justify deleting or otherwise sanctioning them.
 
2:37 PM
Just checking for my browser: $g_{\mu\nu}$
Hmmm
 
@JamalS It's actually pinned in the right upper corner in the room description how to render MathJaX here
Or rather, the math meta post explaining it is there...
 
$$g_{\mu\nu}$$
It works now :)
 
@DavidZ: Why did you close this question as opinion based? I'd be inclined to say it's too broad, but whether or not a given physical quantity is ever of a certain mathematical form is surely not opinion based.
 
@ManishEarth well really $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the entire perturbation
 
@DavidZ We split it up further for some analysis. Forgot
@ACuriousMind What about the percentage of them?
@ACuriousMind too broad to me
 
2:46 PM
I agree with @ACuriousMind; it's certainly too broad, but whether a physical quantity can be expressed as that integral is not opinion-based.
 
@ACuriousMind yeah, I was debating between too broad and opinion-based... the sense in which it could be considered opinion-based is that it's a list question with a large number of answers, and what makes any given answer worth posting is a matter of opinion
 
yes, but what decides the validity of an answer is not opinion based, is it?
 
@DavidZ I see...yet, "large number of equally valid different answers" is what too broad was made for, if I understand it corretly. Alright, if we don't disagree why it's closed, there's no issue here.
 
"too broad" + 1 from me
 
@ManishEarth You mean, what if they are the majority of comments/contributions of an account? That's...sad, but as I said, they actually contribute information about the post that's not fit for an answer, and that's what comments are made for.
 
2:51 PM
@ACuriousMind Hmm, yeah
Still, that could be said for a lot of the spam that other sites get
overt self promotion, even if it is relevant
 
@ACuriousMind well, I think what "too broad" was made for was questions which are not specific enough, where a proper answer would fill a textbook. Like "how does quantum mechanics work?" But I suppose this does qualify too. There's no dedicated "list question" close reason.
 
On another note, I don't know if it's the rixht place to discuss it.
http://cheekujodhpur.github.io/blog/milky-cool.html
 
@DavidZ eh, you're confusing POB with the old NARQ that it replaced
 
Opinions on the hypotheses. Some people recommend alterations. Should I rather just go forward with the experiment?
 
@ManishEarth I dunno, I read the close descriptions given a few times before deciding on one
 
2:52 PM
true
@Cheeku Ah, freshman year. A time where you can do random crazy things like studies on techniques of cooling milk :p
@Cheeku Also, please tell me that class is cancelled tomorrow :p
 
That's exactly what I want to avoid... All my freshman uni courses have practical work... :(
 
@ManishEarth But overt self promotion is not directly prohibited, is it (that's how I understand SE policy, anyway)? It's perfectly okay to "cite" yourself if it is relevant a post. The fact that these are "link only" would be problem in answers, but I don't know any explicit rules for that in comments.
 
@ManishEarth It's important,duh. I need to optimize my time needed to cool milk.
 
@ACuriousMind once, yes. Twice, yes. All the time, no
> The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.
> some (but not all)
 
@JamalS Ha, it will pass :) I've one experiment left, then I never have to set foot in a lab I don't want to be in again.
 
2:56 PM
@ManishEarth and other people: I just want one opinion. I am completely neglecting any effects coming from the fluid behaviour while pouring. Some people say it matters a lot. Does it? Should I include relevant variables in my experimental design?
 
@ManishEarth: That seems to be about answers and not comments
 
@ManishEarth That's talking about answers...comments are a less restricted realm, I think
 
@KyleKanos yep. I've got some meta posts that seem more generic, let me just go through them
 
Okay
 
But I certainly see the problem here, I'm not saying it's obvious that we should do nothing about it
 
2:58 PM
Nope, nothing on comments
or there may be, there are lots of meta posts on this
 
To anyone experienced with arXiv and a bit of HEAP, http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4194
This paper mentions a new software package. I like it, and I want it. Do I just send them a mail, or wait for a public release to come? There are no details I found on the paper
 
@Cheeku my guess is to just email them, if there's nothing listed in the paper. But you may not get the code; a lot of scientists are squeamish about sharing their code, for reasons that don't always make sense to me.
 
@Cheeku: IMO: No AMR = No bueno ;)
@DavidZ Hydro codes are hard to do right. Protecting hydro codes by limiting the public availability is a way to keep your step ahead of your competitors
 
Okay, but I can have the software package right?
At least. :P
I actually need it. I think I can make an organization buy it for me too. :/
So, how?
 
@KyleKanos Competitors makes it sounds as if scientists doing that were some kind of corporation...what about free access to knowledge?
(Yeah, I'm a bright-eyed idealist)
 
3:09 PM
@Cheeku one of our profs? Pretty easy, I would say
 
@Cheeku If the author (Schneider, in this case) is willing to distribute it freely, send him an email and ask.
 
0
Q: Starting a chat, including existing comments

garypThere are a few features in Stack Exchange that I can never remember how to do. How do I move a discussion that has started in an exchange of comments to a chat, while copying the existing discussion to the chat as well? I've seen it done, and I've even done it myself, but I always struggle to...

 
@ACuriousMind (a) Journals cost money, so there really isn't "free access" to any knowledge. (b) if you're trying to be the one to solve some problem, anyone else who is trying to solve it is necessarily competing to be the one to solve it
 
@ManishEarth No, TIFR peeps!
 
@Cheeku ah, right :D
you and your contacts
Wait, which prof in TIFR?
I know one of the GTR-ish people there
 
3:13 PM
@ManishEarth "Manojendu Choudhary" HEP!
 
ah
heard of him i think
 
@KyleKanos Actually happens! Had an MIT prof on not-responding because it turned out he observed the same thing and wanted to pursue it himself. :/
 
Another nail in the coffin of my ideals, I guess... (is that understandable as a phrase in English? :P)
 
That is an understandable phrase in English
 
@KyleKanos I never know which idioms translate well (or even come from English) and which don't, so I thought I'd ask
 
3:20 PM
No problem. I can imagine the troubles I'd have translating idioms to another language
 
so I may not be able to be at the chat session after all
 
I'm here...
 
o/ @Waffle'sCrazyPeanut
 
Now that I've got my broadband, I guess I'd be here often! :P
Hey there @Manish (@DavidZ @KyleKanos) :D
 
Hey Waffle!
 
3:36 PM
8 months! After 8 months, I'm back into the virtual world... ^_^
 
Has it been that long!?
 
@Waffle'sCrazyPeanut You were here less than 8 months ago! (But not consistently, granted)
Ah, this weird Daylight Saving...I was shortly confused why the chat session starts at 5pm instead of 6pm all of a sudden...
 
3:51 PM
@ACuriousMind I was quite active an year ago... I lost my participation when I lost my internet (But, I still read stuff posted by you fellas!) :P
 
4:02 PM
So I guess we ought to discuss this:
-3
Q: Let me write "lagrangian" in lower case

OokerI wrote this question, intentionally using lagrangian, not Lagrangian. Google is a company name, a proper noun, but google is a verb; Fermi is a person name, but fermion is a noun. I think this is right, alike Feynmann. I know that Lagrangian is widely accepted and if I write different, readers w...

Is it lagrangian or Lagrangian?
No takers?
 
@KyleKanos It's Lagrangian.
 
There, science is settled
 
As your answer shows, there is no evidence at all that it should be written lowercase
And since language is defined by its usage, not by how we think it should be used, it's really wrong to write lagrangian.
Even if some grammar/etymology pedant think they have convincing arguments for the opposite - that's just not how it is.
 
I suppose then we ought to discuss what occurred last night: should comments linking to other physics sites be flagged as spam?
 
Well, I already said what I think about that - what about the others? Are you indifferent, or do you have a preference?
 
4:18 PM
I'm okay with it being done on occasion.
Consistent behavior is different
 
I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be done really at all, regardless of site.
 
@KyleKanos If the link is relevant and useful, it is definitely fine.
2
 
If our goal is to be a set of self-contained solutions to conceptual problems, linking to other physics sites loses that self-containment
 
@KyleKanos But it's the answers that shall be self-contained. There's nothing stopping anyone from incorporating the content in the link in the comment and posting a self-contained answer with it
And if the presence of a comment discourages people from writing a full answer, then they're doing it wrong.
 
@KyleKanos It is done and it will be done. Even if we all do agree that link comments are bad and write it in the rules, then it is most sure that that rule will be one of the most violated next to the be nice policy.
 
4:23 PM
@Nick The issue isn't about link comments being bad I guess
We all do it
 
@Nick Linking to Wikipedia isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about linking to Physics Forums, Quora, Reddit, and/or PhysicsOverflow
 
The issue is about consistently using comments to promote a website
2
 
@Nick But that's what flags are for - saying that a policy will be violated is one of the worst reasons not to install it
 
and/or someone's work
 
(If we wouldn't expect a policy to be violated, why would we need to install it in the first place?)
 
4:29 PM
@KyleKanos: Well, ofcourse that will happen. You guys have so may restrictions on what can be asked and what cannot. MSE doesn't face your problem to a great extent because most proof and theory can be found within the site itself. It is not in PSE's manifesto to become an amalgam of user based knowledge and hence external links will prevail.
 
MSE = Math?
 
@ManishEarth Oh, that's the issue? That's definitely spam!
 
@Nick We've had to come up with those restructions for good reasons
Homework: People find it detracts from the professionalism and in general clutters it up (people have left due to this)
Non mainstream: Too many people promoting their kook theories here. No clear policy, which means that people try to argue their way out. Big headache.
Most of the other policies are common with Math
 
@ManishEarth: I understand that but I also understand that there's this big audience who are just confused as to where they should seek help for physics based problems on the stackexchange network. PSE is where students and teachers will find most comfortable to dump their problems but they don't realize this isn't where they should be asking. I think the physics tag in MSE clears up a lot of what this site doesn't like to do.
 
@Nick Sure, but the underlying point is just because there is a physicsy need, we need not cater it
 
4:40 PM
@ManishEarth Absolutely right. But you should totally try migrating certain questions rather than closing them. Although I share your sentiments that reasons for such migrations would have spektical validity, it should be noted that there is no good place for those questions to be answered.
 
@Nick We do migrate to math, rather often
 
just because there isn't another SE site where a question is on topic doesn't mean we need to answer them here...
 
@Nick There isn't a Physics Homework site in the SE network....
 
exactly
@KyleKanos I think someone had proposed one
 
7
Physics homework questions

Proposed Q&A site for students needing help and hints for physics problems and questions either experimental, conceptual or calculational and people who need help to understand a concept in physics or have questions about some concepts taught in class or physics books.

Currently in definition.

 
4:42 PM
@ManishEarth Well, I was unaware of the frequency of it. (I'm just trying to make constructive conversation, lol ... Don't think I'm absolutely serious.)
 
There is a proposal for one
 
@Nick We have a rather recent meta post discussing migrations to math. (It has not received much attention, though)
 
user54412
@DavidZ You know I'm quite willing to share my GRMHD code, except all the postdocs and profs in my group insisted I keep it to myself at least until I graduate. If I publish the code and then another group uses it to get all the low-hanging simulation fruit before I can, well then I don't get published and I don't get a PhD.
 
@ChrisWhite my group has a simulation code & outputs that are shared on a case-by-case basis, people can propose a project that they want to do with our resources, and if no one in our group wanted that project, they get the ok to proceed... surely you can't expect to do all possible projects with your code, and increased exposure is likely to be a good thing?
of course there are possible drawbacks to opening things up entirely early on
 
user54412
@Kyle Yes. Ultimately we want the whole code public. But we'll do a piecewise release -- first the core MHD, then additional modules once we get first results with them.
 
4:48 PM
@ChrisWhite Alternatives are, of course, providing the worst possible Riemann solver & reconstruction to the public and using your advanced one for research
Or eliminate the radiative losses (if any), or some other rather essential piece of physics
 
user54412
@KyleKanos hahaha - the worst possible Riemann solver is what every other GRMHD code already uses
 
@ChrisWhite I hope it's also the fastest possible?
 
Well then, status quo, yeah?
 
user54412
@Kyle In theory yes, but in practice we're always cache-limited, so floating point computations are almost free (if you structure the code just right).
 
user54412
4:51 PM
Though "worst possible" in terms of accuracy will generally be "best" in terms of stability -- nothing blows up with a diffusive enough scheme.
 
@ACuriousMind It would be the same thing to say that $1/2I\omega^2$ and $1/2 m v^2$ are conceptually different because of the units — Ralph 2 mins ago
Sanity check: Angular momentum and linear momentum are different things, right?
 
@ACuriousMind No, they're both momentum :D
 
Should've seen that coming :D
 
Well either people don't like my jerkishness (reasonable) or people want to use lagrangian (less than reasonable) because my answer has +3/-3 right now...
 
@KyleKanos My guess is jerkishness; the question there is at +0/-4
 
4:54 PM
@KyleKanos The fact that the question sits at 0/-4 seems to indicate it's the former
 
user54412
we could just agree to use $L$ or $\mathcal{L}$ and never mention the name
 
Wow....you two....are you sure you're different people?
 
I found your answer a bit jerkish, but not enough to warrant a downvote.
 
you mean $l$ or $\mathcal{l}$? ;)
 
@ChrisWhite "And then we Legendre transform You-know-what.."
 
4:56 PM
@ACuriousMind: Surely you mean And then we legendre transform you-know-what ;)
 
user54412
@KyleKanos Let the Germans have their capitals
 
Surely you mean Kapitals!
 
@KyleKanos Arrrgh :D
 
we haven't considered LAGRANGIAN yet
 
user54412
F77 style? LGNGN or LAGRAN
 
5:01 PM
@ChrisWhite xLGNGN. Or else it will be an int.
(unless you're one of those heathens who uses IMPLICIT NONE)
 
@ColinMcFaul Naw, DLGFN for Double LaGrangian FuNction
3
 
@KyleKanos That proposal is doubtful to lift off because of its limited scope but it would be wonderful if it did. Plus, they'd definitely have to change that name.
 
@Nick To what, the question is? We have struggled for a long time to find a proper name for , and it still looks awkward to me
Huh, no tag parsing? What did I do wrong?
 
You have a space there
 
Ah, thanks
 
5:09 PM
@Nick Yes, I agree, I don't think it will be a successful proposal
 
@KyleKanos Especially since you have this tag which sort of tells people that the thing they shouldn't post is okay to post.
 
@Nick There have been many Meta posts about burninating the HW tag
 
> People too lazy to read our policies before posting should not be given the convenience of migration to a site that will answer their question, since that does not discourage them from just posting here again next time.
What measures do you have against the above?
 
@Nick I believe that's exactly what I wrote as justification for closing mathy questions that just ask for the solution of something as off-topic/homework instead of migrating to math
 
@KyleKanos MSE doesn't know how to deal with HW either. It isn't just PSE's problem.
@ACuriousMind: The reasoning in that sentence is just as disturbing to me as the quote "The purpose of life isn't to be happy; it is to be useful" is to you.
 
5:14 PM
@Nick Any time I see MSE, I think Meta.StackExchange & not Math.StackExchange, so I have to stop and think & look at the context.
@Nick What do you mean "what measures"? We're only allowed to migrate to 1 of 2 places: Meta.Physics.SE and Math.SE; if it doesn't fit in those bounds, I don't vote to migrate.
 
@KyleKanos: I think people call it SEMeta or just Meta. Our PSE meta is referred to as a site meta, locally.
@KyleKanos I meant what measures are you actually taking to discourage them other than not migrating?
 
Site meta is a common phrase. I think most of us around here either use Meta.SE or Mother Meta
@Nick Voting to close and downvoting, plus comments.
I have this canned response ready in my IDE: Please note that Physics.StackExchange is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for "check my work" problems
 
@KyleKanos Very good. I think that should be a flag reason.
 
@Nick Huh? It's already an off-topic VTC/flag-reason
And the closing notice for off-topic/homework also links to KyleKanos' first link
 
@ACuriousMind I meant the phrase 'People too lazy ... should not be given the convenience of migration to a site that will answer their question, since that does not discourage them..'
That sounds a tad bit cruel.
 
5:21 PM
@Nick Yeah, I'm not the nicest person around here about the homework topic.
 
@ACuriousMind That's nice. I never noticed it.
 
@KyleKanos is there a mechanism for adding personal canned responses?
 
@Kyle I think there is, but I'm not sure how to use it. I just copy & paste from the notepad.
 
@Nick Aaaaaaaand I see you've misinterpreted what I was referring to - you said "I think that should be a flag reason" to KyleKanos' comment, which essentially is our current flag/VTC reason
 
@KyleKanos not sure what you meant by IDE then?
 
5:24 PM
Integrated Development Environment
Specifically, geany
 
@Kyle There are browser addons/scripts for that
I rarely use mine because I dislike sounding like a machine
 
alright, that's the acronym I'm familiar with, I guess I just didn't think of it as a notepad-equivalent
 
@ACuriousMind: Good golly. My thoughts are implemented faster than light.
 
have always been a prompt + editor type myself
 
@Nick If you ask about it, I'm afraid we'll have to close it as non mainstream ;P
 
5:28 PM
@ACuriousMind Are you telling me this site is governed by Physics pop-culture?
 
@ACuriousMind Whoa....that's awesome.
Installed and useful!
 
@Nick Uh...I meant that if you ask a question like "Is X faster than light?", more often than not it will be closed because the post usually assumes something that is contrary to mainstream physics. And yes, we're explicitly mainstream here
 
@ACuriousMind I'd be interested to know if your opinion would change if a user had posted tens of comments pointing to a single external site without posting other material to Physics SE. That would be the "pattern and practice" part of my original statement.
 
(Where mainstream is the scientific mainstream and is miles away from what pop culture thinks physics is)
 
lol, noted.
@ACuriousMind: "Is light in vacuum faster than light in air?" , will you close that?
 
5:32 PM
I saw a FTL paper on the arxiv the other day that I didn't disregard as crazy immediately
 
@dmckee I (would, in that hypothetical situation) resent that, but I still don't think it means that these comments must be deleted.
@Nick Nah, the answer is Yes
"faster-than-light" usually refers to faster-than-light-in-vacuum-otherwise-known-as-the-maximum-speed-as-allowed-by-r‌​elativity ;)
@Kyle They're not all kooky, granted. But for some reason, FTL is a prime bait for crackpots.
 
indeed
wish I could find the paper again, wanted to give it a quick read...
 
@ACuriousMind: lol, thanks for the fun chat. See you later. Goodnight :D
 
6:10 PM
I think I have found my favourite SE question title ever: Life isn't fair
2
 
6:44 PM
@dmckee please note that I (and probably others who provide links to external sources) have posted some on Physics SE considered useful material or I would not have earned slighly > 4000 rep. Comments dont contribute to the gain of rep... And if everything keeps being reasonable and fair, nothing will stop me (and others who link to external sources at times) from providing new answers and questions in the future. Disallowing links to good information relevant for a question would be strange.
 
@Dilaton Allowing a person to post a link to one website that he/she owns/operates would be strange.
The definition of spam is, Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising. As well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site. (from Wikipedia article on spamming)
What you are doing is the very definition of spam. How you can twist what you do to be not-spam is something I'm very interested in seeing you do.
 
7:06 PM
I should note that the bolded words above are my own emphasis.
 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 23:00

« first day (1461 days earlier)      last day (1752 days later) »