Talk:A Brief History of Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literature Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Physics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

Any astrophysicists here who can improve these pages? -Adrian

What is wrong with the equation? I don't know how to fix it. -Shih-Arng

[edit] Equations count

"The author notes that for every equation in the book the readership will be halved, hence it includes only a single equation: E=mc²."

But isn't the author's note itself an equation, making the total 2?--StanZegel 17:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. In fact there are plenty of equations in the book, but he wrote them out in word form so there wouldn't be any "equations". For example, he describes the law of gravity as being the product of the first mass times the product of the second mass divided by... etc. He used a loophole to get past the 'no equation' rule. In my opinion this made the book less readable. Carbon cat 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film

I find it a bit odd that the book was apparently made into a film, evidenced by the infobox and the categories it's in, but there's no mention of the film in the main text. --Last Malthusian 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a separate wikipedia entry for the film here. Should the film infobox be moved to that entry? --Kooky (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It could be moved out again when the film article has grown.--I hate to register 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)