Talk:Newtonian Physics

I'm onto it

I agree this is an awful totally un-physics related article! I'm going to fix it and try and make it relevant. I'm checking out related uncyclopedia articles to make it consistent. Ummmm... wish me luck... like a sale "everything must go" (except that part about momentum being fast - I like it!)

Please feel free to add things you think I should talk about. So far I have:

1. 3 laws

2. Classical/ Semi-classical and non-classical physics (relate to quantum cheddardynamics.

Rah Rah, 10th June 2006

something

I had this urge to revert, but I couldn't tell the difference :-P --Chronarion 16:58, 8 Mar 2005 (EST)

exactly.

What the... hell??! --Omaha 01:04, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

Um... this is pulled directly from http://www.timecube.com/ ...

We know... but it's been changed somewhat. Besides timecube... is messed up. --PantsMacKenzie 13:53, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

What, time cube?! o_O --210.6.198.129 07:44, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

Brilliant! This had me on the floor. Ettlz 17:21, 13 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Sorry to ruin the fun, but parts of this are copyright violations. Eric119 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Hmmm... there's a right to parody (c.f. SomethingAwful's Learning Triangle), but not all of this is parody. I'll get on to replacing the images with CC originals. Ettlz 07:20, 22 May 2005 (EDT)

Yeah, most of the article is exact duplication of content from the Time Cube site. I fail to see how that constitues parody. I have begun a new version that is more original (inspired by the web site of course). Would anyone like to see it? Eric119 17:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you've not put it up already, I would. I'm thinking the whole thing also needs a bit of "general wikification". I've created two replacement images, Image:Timecube-graphic1.png and Image:Timecube-graphic2.png; I'm thinking about the others, but some of the originals are just too damn crude to copy and keep the same "feel". Also, I've attributed the stuff to one "Jean Reh"... — Ettlz 21:05, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Looking through this article's history, it has a Time Cube page and an actual physics page, and the two are reverted every so often. This obviously won't work. If both articles are worthy of existence (which seems to be the case) then one's going to need to be moved. Thus, I'm taking a vote. Which one should be moved, and to where? --EvilZak 00:44, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to Slime Cube (in line with the article).

Voting for the "actual physics" page to be moved to Attempts at physics jokes that are not funny.

I agree that the Newtonian Physics article is pretty bad... but the Time Cube stuff really doesn't belong here. Aside from the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with Newton or physics, a direct cut-and-paste from an outside webpage does not belong here. If you want it on Uncyclopedia at all, then

• Clean it up
• Trim it down
• Add something of your own (more than just adding random words into the first six lines), and
• Put it somewhere relevant.

The guy who wrote Slime Cube had the right idea.

Better yet, you could write something original about Newtonian Physics which is actually funny ;) --LuminaryJanitor 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to fix

As I mentioned above I've tried to start a replacement for this Time Cube page (which had lots of formatting problems, is copied, etc.). I've put it at Newtonian Physics/other. There are lots of blank lines blank except for markup where you can add more without worrying about formatting. Please fill them in! I think we should scrap most of the original article and start over, but I'm not bold enough to do that without some agreement. Eric119 21:52, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Stub?

This article is 192 kb and they say it's a stub??--69.171.45.206 23:50, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)