Talk:Ralph 124C 41+

Pun
What pun? (DOH?) Rich Farmbrough 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "ONE TO FORESEE FOR ONE"

Ergo Proxy popular reference
The notes that the previous editor is talking about seem to be the notes that the Shinsen-Subs anime release group added to the end of the series, so I am removing that from the article. However, it is extremely unlikely that they would just happen to choose the same ID number for RE-L as this particular character, so I am not reverting to the edit where it states that it is unsure if the creators of Ergo Proxy took inspiration from this story. (Hopefully that makes sense, it's rather late here.) mr_flea (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ether reference
... in the article Luminiferous_aether -- a discussion of the theory in physics. A conference was held on the subject as late as 1928. -- Craig Goodrich 206.39.12.245 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a space or not?
The article uses both "124C 41+" and "124C41+", which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.60.194 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither one, correct is 124C 41 +. The Project Gutenberg text has it obviously wrong, e.g. adds plus sign in the text, where it isn't. —Mykhal (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hadron Collider
Someone added the following: "(Consider CERN Hadron Collider, this should be readdressed/Dec.2016)" Didn't want to lose this, but it doesn't belong in the article itself, so I'm noting it here after removing it.24.149.37.233 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ether remark revisited
The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the simple Ether theory as early as 1881! While some physicists tried to save it by making complicated assumptions about the Ethers behaviour, the Special theory of relativity, that explained the expeimental results, was published in 1905. (The best alternative explanations basically said that the Ether is unobservable.) --Nomentz (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Error
The title “124c41+” doesn’t mean “One to foresee for one another” but rather “One to foresee for one plus”. -R.G. (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)