User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2011

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Telling people that they "...should really get a clue" is not very conductive to promoting a constructive discussion. I know SBHarris started the mud slinging, but try to stay above that. I would say the same to SBHarris, but I have no reason to believe that he would respond well to such a remark.TimothyRias (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now, I'm not that prickly. I suppose I could be accused of having "started" mudslinging by telling Headbomb that he's using his own personal definition of "mass", but that's not much mud! And besides, is it not true? There is no definition of mass I'm aware of in physics, which is not conserved (at least in SR-- but the sort of "non-conservation" that appears in GR applies to energy, too, so it's not "mass" that is the problem). Headbomb's definition of mass is not conserved, but he's using a defintion of mass that I've never seen before in a textbook. It's not relativistic mass, it's not invariant mass, it's not rest mass, and it's not even the various kinds of measures of mass that appear in GR. Perhaps you can talk to him about it. Do you happen to speak French? SBHarris 02:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TimothyRias/Archives. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

you wrote "any such interpretation of that statement is pure speculation" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have reedited the information accordingly.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It written "tatha ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojane ekena nimishardhena kramaman" and its translation is "[O Sun,] bow to you, you who traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimes.". As per Prof Kak the velocity comes to "186,413.22 miles per second". It means light that is part of sun is travelling at 186,413.22 miles per second. I do not understand why there is confusion if it is said sun is travelling, isn't light part of sun? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For me there is no speculation, but unfortunately wiki needs a secondary source. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Timothy

I recently read your Black Hole article and being a non physics bod I was plesently surprised I could understand most of it. You have a real talent in explaining extremely compicated concepts in way that is easily understood. Spurred on by your article I dived into one about the theory of relativity and was disapointed to find it lacking in any real substance, I don't really feel I understand Einstien's theory any better, except in a superficial level.

I was hoping to ask you if you have written any books I could read or if you ever lecture any where, except I notice from your Wiki page that you wish your identity to remain anonimous, which I totaly understand.

Let it be known I will be scouring Wikipeadia for your articles, indeed if you could point me in there direction I would be most greatful.

Thank you very much

BPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepolobrighton (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I guess. Although do note that Black hole is not "my" article, since nobody owns a wikipedia article. Also, although I have put a lot of work into that article, many other editors have contributed to that article as well, and also deserve credit for their work. Unfortunately for you, I haven't written any books. Learning about GR, without much mathematical or physical background, can be quite hard, since it requires some pretty abstract concepts to make precise. If you do have some background knowledge, then Carroll's book (or lecture notes, see reference in the black hole article) is really good, finding a really good balance between mathematical clarity and physical intuition, while referring to sources that give more in depth treatment of subjects that he skims over.TR 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello; I think torsion tensors are not what people mean, generally, when they talk about "torsion fields", so I have started a discussion to move this back to Torsion field. Here is the discussion; please take a look: Talk:Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)#Requested_move. Also, please make sure that when you move an article you remember to move the subpages of the article as well. You didn't do that in this case. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, if you cause one phrase to point from one article to another, you need to update all the links to the first article. Now there are links meant to point to the article that is at Torsion_field_(pseudoscience) that instead are pointing to torsion tensor; please be more careful when moving pages around like this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise edits and comments on matrix. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

Thank you for grading the article "Metric System". I woudl obviously like to improve it, but I do not knwo which areas need attenetion. I would very much appreciate it if you would leave some comments on its /Talk page.

Groete Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all that needs to be done to fix the definition is to remove the sentence, "Computing the array requires selecting a basis for the tensor." ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a statement doesn't make any sense, when you are defining a tensor as an array equipped with a transformation law. "Computing the array" only makes sense if you first define a tensor in a different way, such as a multilinear map.TR 10:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. But that's the only reference to computation I can see. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But the whole thing you wrote presupposes that tensors were already defined in some other way. You've repeatedly expressed the misconception the the "as multidimenional arrays" section is describing "properties of tensor". It is not, it is detailing how tensors are defined "as multidimenional arrays" equipped with a transformation law. I have tweaked the start of the second paragraph to make that fact more explicit.TR 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is supposed to be a section on the properties of tensors, I'm attempting to describe the difference between an array with and without a transformation law by describing what a transformation law is. The "computing" sentence was only to recall the numerical nature of a plain array. I understand that saying those numbers do not indicate their origins through the application of a basis is problematic because it implies that the tensor already existed. I was trying to follow from the existing statement that the array is defined in terms of a basis by saying that without knowing that basis the reaction to it can't be distinguished. This can be rephrased so that an a priori tensor doesn't enter the language. The point is just to be able to understand the difference before the details are worked out (including what kind of reaction is meant). I'm having these problems because it's a tricky thing to say. I need someone to understand what I'm trying to say and to think about how to say it correctly. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NOFI, but I think you are having trouble trying to say what you want to say, because what you want to say is fundamentally confused.TR 13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the quote from Talk:Tensor#Basis and type lost describes the difference between a tensor and an array, but it depends on a tensor already being defined. I'm trying to derive a converse statement, but I've only found the connections to make, not how to make them without already having a tensor. Let me try a different outline: It starts with an array and describes what the object becomes (a tensor) if you let parts of it react differently (covary or contravary) to a basis. Then it says how to assign those reactions to the parts of the array, which is given in the form of a transformation law. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, are you interested in working together on dimension? It is a topic both appealing to the larger public, but also holds the promise of an appealing topic for advanced readers. Finally, it is a meeting point of various domains, maths, physics, philosophy(?), and beyond. We might aim for GA level to begin with. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be having much time for the coming half year. But, looks like a great article to work on, and I encourage you to work on it. I'll add it to my watchlist, and try to help out where and when I can.TR 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tim, Thank you for reading and commenting on the article discrete Green's theorem. I saw that you added there "Dubious" in the line: "In spite of the theorem's simplicity and elegancy, it was first introduced to the mathematical society only by the early ${\displaystyle 21^{st}}$ century". Please refer to the discussion regarding this theorem. Although some argue about the significance of the theorem, all agree that it was formulated by the early ${\displaystyle 21^{st}}$ century. Please correct me if I am mistaken. In case you were convinced, please consider removing your "dubious" remark. Best wishes, --amiruchka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

I can find references to a discrete Green's theorem dating back to the 1980s at least. The relevant original publication appears to be Tang, G. Y. (1982). "A Discrete Version of Green's Theorem". IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (3): 242–249. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.1982.4767241..TR 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was familiar with Tang's work; Note that the article mentions that there exist many discretizations of Green's theorem. However, the discretization in the article became somehow very popular within just 4 years (37 citations and growing), hence I decided to write an article about it. Perhaps the choice of the name ("discrete Green's theorem") was not successful and confusing. Best wishes, --amiruchka

There is a dispute at the page "an exceptionally simple ...". In my opinion there is scientryst and another editor who are trying to make the article state that the theory is much better than it is. I saw you wrote on that page once, so if you are interested go look at the talk page. The page is currently protected by the too many reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.28 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Black hole#Replacement image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Recent Edit In The Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds Article re The "Costella" Reference As "not a WP:RS" - No Problem Whatsoever - FWIW - Seems This Particular Reference Also Appeared In Neutrino#Speed (added by "User:DrJohnPCostella") - I've Edited This Out With The Edit Summary -> "not a WP:RS" - Hope This Applies Here Also - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. (The edit by User:DrJohnPCostella seems to be a clear case of WP:COI.)TR 13:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I Agree re A Seemingly Clear Case Of WP:COI - Thanks Again For Your Help With This - It's *Greatly* Appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. --Meno25 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a section here[[1]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I wondered if you would care to discuss tensor densities with me, as it seems we have two different viewpoints on the subject. I am quite new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea where we best talk about it, as you correctly pointed out the article page isn't the correct place to do so. Cretu (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you just have question, then the proper place to ask is the Wikipedia reference desk.

If you want to discuss the subject of tensor densities, then Wikipedia really is not the proper place to do so at all . There are other websites on the internet dedicated to discussions of technical topics. In the case of tensor densities, you might try the math subforum of physics forums. (Just the first thing that popped up, there maybe better forums out there.)

Hopefully this helps you.TR 16:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have derived my concerns on my talk page, please take a lookCretu (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've tried to build on your comment. If you can keep an eye on this section until it's resolved I'd really appreciate it, because it needs specialist physicist input to end up with text that is technically accurate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear TimothyRias: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently contributed to the Higgs boson article.

Now that the article is stable, relatively consistent, comprehensive, easy to read, and balanced, I wondered what more you think it needs to get to Good Article quality? It would be nice to get it there as it's a "top importance" article in its field, and the Higgs boson is of considerable popular interest.

I've summed up the points I can think of on its talk page and linked a few others to the post. Thorough review, fixes, and comments appreciated, and - shall we go for it :)

GA criteria are here.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not online much due to the holidays. Getting the Higgs boson article yo GA is a good idea, and I will have a look in the new year.TR 11:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)