|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I asked him permission to put this image:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/IoA/staff/mjr/rees_bw.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 3 December 2004 (UTC)
- That image is used all over the place, usually without attribution. One article on the BBC credits Cambridge University. There are maybe three or four commonly used portraits of him. I bet most of the websites using his picture never had permission, but we can't do that on Wikipedia. The book cover was the best I could find without needing permission. The alternative were some very poor shots from a 1995 debate that are on the NASA site. JRawle (Talk) 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
PRS v FRS
What is the correct honour whilst Martin Rees is President of the Royal Scoiety? I believe it is P(resident)RS but saw this had been changed before and changed back Rogwan 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe the argument hinges on whether PRS is recognised as a postnominal anywhere outside the RS. They use it on his bio page there ... but then they also use "Kt" for knight which is not formally correct. The article on previous president Lord Adrian still has "PRS" but I am certain they don't keep it after the end of their term. It is unusual to have postnominal letters for a specific office, particularly one that is only held for a few years. You could e-mail someone at the RS to ask. JRawle (Talk) 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Presidents of some societies have special letters to signify their appointment. The President of the Royal Society has PRS after his name, for instance, but these letters are used only within the particular society." (Debrett's Correct Form under "Fellowship of Learned Societies") Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely the title should be Martin, Lord Rees of Ludlow, not Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow? "Lord Rees of Ludlow" is his title according to , and Baron isn't used as a title in England. -- Robminchin 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) - we put the Baron in because Lord could mean any one of a Marquess, an Earl, a Viscount or a Baron, or in many cases a courtesy title for their children. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- In English usage, Lord couldn't mean anything other than Baron in this context though (Duke, Marquess, Earl and Viscount all use the rank in their written title, see e.g. ), and Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron could all just as easily be courtesy titles (e.g. the Earl of Arundel, the eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk). To quote Burke's Peerage, "to refer in the third person to any baron in the peerage (2) of England, Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland or the United Kingdom as 'Baron Blank' rather than 'Lord Blank' is a solecism"  - but I suppose if Wikipedia has set a convention it should be followed, even if it's not good english. -- Robminchin 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Is he an atheist?
- He describes himself as a "practising, but non-believing Christian" Interview with Rees, Guardian, 24 April 2003. That seems to imply that he doesn't believe in God. --184.108.40.206 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
He's neither a theist nor an atheist. He always seems to sidestep the God question. Agnostic Anglican would be an appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Rees's position on religion may be noteworthy, as he says he has no religious beliefs, yet is a practising Anglican as he values the tradition. He goes into more detail in this debate  (from 15:00). --Mattmm (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's good to point out that he likes to side-step the question. He doesn't consider it relevant nor does he consider blasting it (his Dawkins Comments) useful either.
Also there is no mention to him being educated at Bedstone College, Bucknell, Shropshire. Which I know for a fact he did attend because I also went there and he has been back since. The article on Bedstone also gives reference to him attending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- “English” is more specific and refers to the English people and not the English language. — Richie 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In, "The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology: Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences", 27-31 October 1992, Day Two 28 October 1992, "The Epoch of Galaxy Formation", Martin J. Rees, University of Cambridge, Page 223, with possible translation(s) into this English, reads:
"And gravitating objects have the peculiar property that when they *lose* energy they get *hotter* - as Professor Thirring has explained, their specific heat is *negative*. For instance, if the sun's radiative losses weren't compensated by nuclear fusion, it would contract and deflate, but would end up with a *hotter* centre than before: to establish a new and more compact equilibrium where pressure can ballance a (now *stronger*) gravitational force, the central temperature must *rise*."
Which I interpretively-correct to context, as far as I can, to this:
"And gravitating [sufficiently large gaseous active fusion] objects have the peculiar property that when they [radiatively] *lose* energy they get *hotter* - as Professor Thirring has explained, [their specific heat is *negative*]. For instance, if the sun's radiative losses weren't compensated by nuclear fusion, it would contract and deflate, but would end up with a *hotter* centre than before: to establish a new and more compact equilibrium where pressure can ballance [(sic)] a (now *stronger*) gravitational force, the central temperature must *rise*." LoneRubberDragon (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What does, [their specific heat is *negative*] mean, that Rees writes, attempting to cite to Physicist Professor W. Thirring's works? Specific heat is the always-greater-than-0 measure of matter's thermal kinetic energy capacity. Perhaps it should read, [their specific heat is *declining*], for English, as the nucleons increase mass in a stellar fusion shell series, which seems a reasonable interpretation. Maybe I've interpreted this Rees paragraph wrong, in some other way I can't scan rightly.
I added [sufficiently large gaseous active fusion] to (objects), because it reduces the errors of the Martin J. Rees' writing, because after a star's death as a white dwarf, or neutron star, it cools off in time, and a "star without fusion" (a gas giant or brown dwarf) also cools off in time, and I am assuming that nucleon-fusion in the shells of aging stars, spending their fuel, inevitably leads to increasing temperatures, as Rees claims.LoneRubberDragon (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wiki:specific heat:in [Jg^(-1)K^(-1)]:for some elements in fusion-supernovae series and products, are:
Carbon (graphite) 0.710
everyone can predict an eminent earthquake that generates a tsunami in Japan that would damage the local economy, that does not make him predict the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
everyone can predict an eminent earthquake that generates a tsunami in Japan that would damage the local economy, that does not make him predict the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildstarlights (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Amendments on behalf of Martin Rees
I made a series of amendments to this page based on the instructions of Martin Rees, in my role as Web Editor at the Royal Society. Please leave a message on my talk page if any of the changes are contentious. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was curious so I checked these edits out. I'm sure the new material is of high quality, but it does appear to be the case that sourced statements were replaced in some cases with unsourced statements, which I'm now bringing to the attention of anyone who might be concerned and wishes to take a second look. I've also dropped a note on Andeggs' talk page mentioning that I would leave this note. — MaxEnt 11:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)