Talk:Speed of light
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speed of light article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Speed of light is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2004.|
|Speed of light has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class.|
|WikiProject Physics / Relativity||(Rated FA-class, Top-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital||(Rated FA-class)|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
The Fundamental role in physics section refers to "a special symmetry called Lorentz invariance". However, when following the "Lorentz invariance" link, we arrive at an article called "Lorentz covariance" containing definitions of the following terms:"Lorentz symmetry", "Lorentz covariance", "Local Lorentz covariance", and links to "Poincaré covariance" and "Poincaré invariance".
- Hi, IP 192+ – from my own limited understanding of physics (so this will likely be oversimplied), it has to do with frames of reference, and if a value such as the speed of light (c) remains the same in two or more frames of reference then it is said to be (Lorentz) invariant, or unchanging. Across the two or more frames of reference, the speed of light may also be said to be covariant, or varying in one frame in the same manner as it varies in another frame. The Lorentz covariance article does go into this, however more reading is probably necessary to completely grasp it. For many physicists, there appears to be little or no difference between Lorentz covariance and Lorentz invariance, which is why (so I surmise) that one redirects to the other. See also Invariance (physics). Hope anybody else will jump in, correct me and explain this like you would to a seven-year-old if and where needed. Stick to sources! Paine 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Mix of metric/imperial
It is absolutely ridiculous to see the mix of metric and imperial in this article. Speed in meters per second, then miles per hour etc.. It doesn't help anyone in understanding the magnitude if the units is mixed this way. Could we stick to metric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done. They are approximate values, accurate to three significant figures, so 186,000 is the correct value to have there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why all those 'howevers' were removed
(Copied from my talk page User talk:DVdm)
WP:EDITORIAL says this: More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, possibly inappropriately undermining the validity of the first statement while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.
Your revert also brought back the word famous. See WP:PUFFERY;
... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...
Therefore is optional. But I don't think Wikipedia should read like an essay that is trying to prove a particular point.
It also brought back the word argue, claim and maintain. See WP:SAID;
... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...
Argue is a synonym for assert. Maintain is a synonym for insist.
To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.
To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.
The most famous of which is is obviously puffery. I am against positive and negative loading. I just want Wikipedia articles to be neutrally loaded. I have never heard of what happened in 1887 before.
So that most famous experiment of the 1880s can't be famous at all to me. Famous is subjective. LittleBigPlanet won't seem famous to you until you've heard of it for a while.
- This is about my recent revert of user Turkeybutt JC's edits.
- I think the word "famous" is not a case of puffery here, as it is directly sourced in the article—see 
- Note the sentence on page 44: "This formula was to become the most famous in the history of physics [...]" I think that most physicists would agree that the formula is at least famous, and I'm sure that we could find hundreds of similar sources. - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then the article should've said that the source stated that it was famous. I don't think it should read like a positively loaded statement. As said at WP:PUFFERY;
- Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
- --Turkeybutt (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note that WP:PUFFERY is merely an essay, not a wp:guideline or a wp:policy. On the other hand, I don't agree that in this context the word "famous" is a case of puffery, and I don't agree that the article should say that the source stated that it was famous. Many reliable sources say that the formula is famous (and even the most famous one), so per wp:VERIFIABILITY (policy), Wikipedia can safely say that it is famous. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The bit about high frequency traders might be true, but the traders are misinformed, and mentioning it on this page is misleading. If microwave frequency radio communications are faster than fibre optic cable, it is nothing to do with the speed of light, and everything to do with how the data is encoded and how fast the switching is to send the data. As an example, if you send Morse Code using a torch, the light is travelling at the speed of light, but your message is only travelling as fast as you can press the on/off switch. IshalSaithesUrnlywans (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)