Talk:Nuclear fusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The statement "Don't worry though as it takes a very long time for stars to die, much longer than the age of the Earth." does not make sense. I mean it is not stating anything. Obviously our sun has been around longer than the Earth. This unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

This would only be obvious to someone who knew this already. Also, the sentence does not refer to Sol specifically, but instead gives a simple point of reference of the lifetime for any given star to people unfamiliar with astronomy. Sure I agree the "Don't worry" bit should be taken out (pov?), but this is wikipedia ;) why don't you have a go! :D MattOates 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough the solar system was born at roughly the same time. A gas-cloud collapsed mostly to form the sun & the remnants coalesced to form the planets, so the sun & earth formation are roughly coincident. This is according to the widely accepted so-called "Nebular Theory".-- (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

constants important only to physics?[change source]

I am not a physicist or a scientist, and this is also my first day in Simple English Wikipedia. I am an engineer and I use math a lot, and so when I read that the concept of a constant was very important to physics, I thought "Well, it is really important to mathematics, too, and maybe that should be mentioned".

If the concept of a constant with regard to physics is unique to the general mathematical definition, perhaps this could be further explained. I am guessing that you are hinting that it is unique because only in physics are contants actually dictated by immutable reality instead of assigned by humans for the purpose of solving an algebra problem like if I have these two lines where will they intersect.

It just struck me as odd that you didn't mention that constants are important to mathematics or algebra. SECUTOR7 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, but the context of the article is a description of a physical phenomenon, not a general discussion. It's bad enough that I ramble on about Stars and everything else! I'd be happy to link to a Mathematical constant page you might like to make, and remove that bit of the article ;) Constant exists but is a poor stub article. MattOates 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup[change source]

Once again, I think the editors here need to remember that "Simple" doesn't mean "mentally disabled." One can use the language in a simple fashion without dumbing down the ideas, much less simplifying them to the point where they are "simply" incorrect. I have tried to clean things up a bit here. -- 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It can mean both mentally disabled, and 5 years old. This wiki isn't just here for people trying to learn a new language afaik. If anything the actual English Wikipedia would be better for that, since a lot of the other language wikis are direct translations of English articles. Don't make edits about what you think simple wikipedia is for, just present as much information about Nuclear fusion as simply as we can. If we just want a wiki that has simplicity of language, we can use machine translation from the actual English wiki to do that surely? MattOates 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a good idea. If we take the English Wikipedia articles are run them through the Boolean logic process of computer translation, maybe we will all be able to understand them; particularly the mathematical ones.WFPM (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)