There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Spacetime
What JJ provided was really a substub. I've turned it into something which is more of a stub or semi-stub. What do people think? (((Zack Martin)))™ 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's certainly better. Perhaps we can talk about the abuse of the word by woo-meisters? It seems like the type of word that they throw out to sound fancy. ThunderkatzHo! 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does seem like that type of word, doesn't it? Good
luckjob improving it, Maratrean. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 00:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does seem like that type of word, doesn't it? Good
The following sentence from the article is ambiguous and needs clarification; perhaps the author merely misspoke, but as written it makes no sense: "Velocity in space and the passage of time collectively form the gradient with respect time of the vector space." --Slings and Arrows (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)