Talk:Martin Rees

I asked him permission to put this image:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/IoA/staff/mjr/rees_bw.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.69.103.2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 3 December 2004 (UTC)

That image is used all over the place, usually without attribution. One article on the BBC credits Cambridge University. There are maybe three or four commonly used portraits of him. I bet most of the websites using his picture never had permission, but we can't do that on Wikipedia. The book cover was the best I could find without needing permission. The alternative were some very poor shots from a 1995 debate that are on the NASA site. JRawle (Talk) 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Rees has given his permission for the current photo to be used, so I've tagged it as a promotional photo. It's much better than using a book cover! JRawle (Talk) 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PRS v FRS

What is the correct honour whilst Martin Rees is President of the Royal Scoiety? I believe it is P(resident)RS but saw this had been changed before and changed back Rogwan 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the argument hinges on whether PRS is recognised as a postnominal anywhere outside the RS. They use it on his bio page there [1]... but then they also use "Kt" for knight which is not formally correct. The article on previous president Lord Adrian still has "PRS" but I am certain they don't keep it after the end of their term. It is unusual to have postnominal letters for a specific office, particularly one that is only held for a few years. You could e-mail someone at the RS to ask. JRawle (Talk) 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Presidents of some societies have special letters to signify their appointment. The President of the Royal Society has PRS after his name, for instance, but these letters are used only within the particular society." (Debrett's Correct Form under "Fellowship of Learned Societies") Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

Surely the title should be Martin, Lord Rees of Ludlow, not Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow? "Lord Rees of Ludlow" is his title according to [2], and Baron isn't used as a title in England. -- Robminchin 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) - we put the Baron in because Lord could mean any one of a Marquess, an Earl, a Viscount or a Baron, or in many cases a courtesy title for their children. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In English usage, Lord couldn't mean anything other than Baron in this context though (Duke, Marquess, Earl and Viscount all use the rank in their written title, see e.g. [3]), and Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron could all just as easily be courtesy titles (e.g. the Earl of Arundel, the eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk). To quote Burke's Peerage, "to refer in the third person to any baron in the peerage (2) of England, Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland or the United Kingdom as 'Baron Blank' rather than 'Lord Blank' is a solecism" [4] - but I suppose if Wikipedia has set a convention it should be followed, even if it's not good english. -- Robminchin 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not referring to him as "Baron Rees of Ludlow", but as "Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow" which (apart from the use of his surname, which is a necessary convention to avoid confusion where titles and surnames are not the same) is legally what he is. Proteus (Talk) 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a doubt with his knighthood, I pressume he is KBE. Why not using in the article? Pablo_Castellanos —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Is he an atheist?

He describes himself as a "practising, but non-believing Christian" Interview with Rees, Guardian, 24 April 2003. That seems to imply that he doesn't believe in God. --143.52.5.181 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He's neither a theist nor an atheist. He always seems to sidestep the God question. Agnostic Anglican would be an appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.110.56 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal life?

No mention of his personal life anywhere. Married? Kids? "Confirmed bachelor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.189.247 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also there is no mention to him being educated at Bedstone College, Bucknell, Shropshire. Which I know for a fact he did attend because I also went there and he has been back since. The article on Bedstone also gives reference to him attending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.41.225 (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Shouldn't it be "is an British cosmologist" rather than "an English cosmologist" as English isn't a nationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.183.9 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

“English” is more specific and refers to the English people and not the English language. — Richie 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rees writings.

In, "The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology: Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences", 27-31 October 1992, Day Two 28 October 1992, "The Epoch of Galaxy Formation", Martin J. Rees, University of Cambridge, Page 223, with possible translation(s) into this English, reads:

"And gravitating objects have the peculiar property that when they *lose* energy they get *hotter* - as Professor Thirring has explained, their specific heat is *negative*. For instance, if the sun's radiative losses weren't compensated by nuclear fusion, it would contract and deflate, but would end up with a *hotter* centre than before: to establish a new and more compact equilibrium where pressure can ballance a (now *stronger*) gravitational force, the central temperature must *rise*."

Which I interpretively-correct to context, as far as I can, to this:

"And gravitating [sufficiently large gaseous active fusion] objects have the peculiar property that when they [radiatively] *lose* energy they get *hotter* - as Professor Thirring has explained, [their specific heat is *negative*]. For instance, if the sun's radiative losses weren't compensated by nuclear fusion, it would contract and deflate, but would end up with a *hotter* centre than before: to establish a new and more compact equilibrium where pressure can ballance [(sic)] a (now *stronger*) gravitational force, the central temperature must *rise*." LoneRubberDragon (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What does, [their specific heat is *negative*] mean, that Rees writes, attempting to cite to Physicist Professor W. Thirring's works? Specific heat is the always-greater-than-0 measure of matter's thermal kinetic energy capacity. Perhaps it should read, [their specific heat is *declining*], for English, as the nucleons increase mass in a stellar fusion shell series, which seems a reasonable interpretation. Maybe I've interpreted this Rees paragraph wrong, in some other way I can't scan rightly.

I added [sufficiently large gaseous active fusion] to (objects), because it reduces the errors of the Martin J. Rees' writing, because after a star's death as a white dwarf, or neutron star, it cools off in time, and a "star without fusion" (a gas giant or brown dwarf) also cools off in time, and I am assuming that nucleon-fusion in the shells of aging stars, spending their fuel, inevitably leads to increasing temperatures, as Rees claims.LoneRubberDragon (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki:specific heat:in [Jg^(-1)K^(-1)]:for some elements in fusion-supernovae series and products, are:

Hydrogen 14.30

Helium 5.193

Neon 1.0301

Oxygen 0.918

Carbon (graphite) 0.710

Silicon 0.703

Iron 0.450

Uranium 0.116

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)