Talk:Physics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Untitled

Why talk about Isaac Newton here and not on the page about Isaac Newton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.100.27 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did Isaac Newton and Leibniz invent calculus?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.44.232 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since several centuries ago. Look it up on the regular Wikipedia.

Surely Newton is important to physicists not only because he invented calc! I recommend checking out his /Principia Mathematica/. - anon

Comments

"The theories of physics are an awful mess. This whole page is an awful mess.", I agree. This page does NOT belong here, at 'Simple English' wikipedia. This is too hard to understand for people who don't have a dictionary English.

I removed that piece about newton and leibniz and put it where it belongs, on the calculus page under history.

The theories of physics are an awful mess. This whole page is an awful mess.--Filll 18:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that temperature is not defined is just plain wrong. Someone should correct that. Or simply remove it. Temperature emerges in statistical physics (the physics of a lot of particles) as the average (or mean) of the energy of all the particles moving (in a gas, or a solid, or a liquid). (193.47.71.253 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Change Definition

to me the definition of Physics better describes astronomy.Geeksluvpi 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple?

If this is a simple English Wikipedia, then why is there a "not so simple" section? Why not just provide a link to Wikipedia's physics page. -- 210.50.86.67 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was written by a physicist or physicists without any understanding of what constitutes "simple". You need to run your entries past a junior high school student before posting it (a 'normal' one, not a science buff); if they look at you blankly then simplify it more. If you can get it to a couple of paragraphs, you've got the idea. 114.198.78.73 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matter?

Last time I checked chemistry was the study of matter, physics dealt more with energy and the mechanics of the universe.--Jared (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry is concerned with the composition, structure, and properties of matter. Physics with matter, energy and their interaction.--Bärl iner 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Let's be simplistic and say that: Chemistry tells us what things are, Physics tells us what things do, And Mathematics tells us about the relative size of things. WFPMWFPM (talk)

Question

I'm an A-Level Physics student, and I've been thinking of ways to help my revision for my exams this year. I came across the simple wiki today and thought I might start a project, namely condensing and simplifying my Physics notes for the physics section of this wiki. Personally I find the main wiki a bit har to cope with sometimes, so perhaps This might help. I know sometimes when finding info on the main wiki, I wish I just had someone to explain things to me in Layman's terms. I'm thinking of starting on the Elasticity section tomorrow. Thoughts?

Not so simple...

This article is too complicated and long for this wiki. I'll always find it funny how physicists always like to talk about simplicity but always are unable to explain anything without using complicated wording. 68.4.212.81 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was some history cut out?

When I added the history section, I wrote it in such a way that it would reflect the page from English Wikipedia (History of Physics). Why was most of it cut out? I think it could have at least been moved to a new page or something. Notfruit (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

As some others have commented here, the article indeed seems a bit too complicated for the purposes of Simple Wikipedia. Over the next few days/weeks/whatever, I will try and comb through the article to make it a bit more suitable. I have already made some changes, including the removal of some material which seems unnecessary/out of place.--Penskins (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]