User talk:Mpatel/archive 2

e-mail (again)

Mpatel -

Did you try? I just got home & did not see anything from Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 22:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 05:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point Symmetries of Maxwell's Equations

Hi, I am still behind the ball re your sandbox--- I take it you haven't replaced the other version yet?

Suggestion: when I have time, I'd like to create a buncha articles on symmetry groups of PDEs, beginning with point symmetry groups of the usual equations of mathematical physics:

• Laplace, Helmholtz, Poisson equations,
• wave equation, Klein-Gordon equation, telegraph equation,
• heat equation,
• KdV, sine-Gordon, Boussinesq nd other soliton equations,
• vibrations of beams (Euler's beam equation) and membranes),
• Maxwell,
• Euler's incompressible hydrodynamics equations, Navier-Stokes.

Many of these have useful variations (cylindrically symmetric versions, various dimensions, various charts) which are worth discussing and which can drastically affect symmetry group. Another interesting point which will take several articles to adequately explain (when I have time) is that various "potential forms" can have different symmetry groups. Also, one should have group analysis of general nonlinear wave equations showing that usual wave equation and friends are distinguished by having a larger than generic symmetry group.

Eventually, this should also be tied in with how to determine suitable expressions for energy/momentum of a wave equation directly from the point symmetry group (e.g. in standard wave equation, KdV, Boussinesq).

Would you like me to try to add a section on the point symmetry group of the Maxwell equation to your sandbox article? In the short term, some readers might wonder what this is good for. Naturally I could include citations explaining this (for other examples, unfortunately).---CH 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. No, I haven't replaced the other version yet - I think it's better to wait till we have something reasonable (for example, I haven't written enough in some sections, and am still debating whether to include some of the the relativity stuff in the original article).

Yes, it would be great if you can include that section on point symmetry groups - of course, us specialists should be careful of not including too many gory mathematical details. But I'm sure you can include the maths in a way which will show why it's relevant to the article. Go for it. Feel free to make any changes to the article you see fit - the article is very much in it's infancy and the new sections I've created are just experimental; they may need to merged, depending on how the article pans out. MP (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

128.253.28.118

This seems to be a machine in Rhodes Hall, the administrative building at my Alma Mater, Cornell University (host of the arXiv). Evidently (speed of thought) someone there is not a fan of gravitational radiation! In any case, that person should not have been using this machine to edit the WP; there are no computer labs or public machines in that building (last I knew, anyway). ---CH 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about Jerusalem

what do you mean has declared it as it's capatial it all ways has intended on it being that way. Please change it to something else --Adam1213 Talk + 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC) no not better as I think that there was a time in which it was not it's capital but it has always wanted it to be and it is --Adam1213 Talk + 12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have a look at Talk:Jerusalem/capital --Adam1213 Talk + 13:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical fields

Hey, I'm sorry I edited while the in-use tag was placed; as you've probably guessed my browser had loaded a copy of the page just before the inuse tag was placed. Masud 14:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Warp drive.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Warp drive.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacCallum review

Great citation! Wow! THANKS! I somehow missed this review by a leading expert (especially since his stuff tends to be right down my line!) and I look forward to studying it. One thing (I am changing project policy page to stress this): when citing arXiv articles, we should always link to the abstract page rather than forcing the poor reader to download the pdf file. I like to read the abstract before downloading, and some will prefer to download postscript rather than pdf (this is in fact much faster and generally more convenient on my system). Other benefits: reader can more conveniently opt to search for other papers by MacCallum, etc. ---CH 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace

I could use some support at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyperspace. The initial comments were pretty appalling, although a few changed their vote after I asked them to take a second look. ---CH 23:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think this has been sorted to my grumpy satisfaction. ---CH 08:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal project

In other news, we should probably start talking again about formalizing WikiProject GTR. Unless some new disaster intervenens, I'd really like to run wild in the next month creating new articles.---CH 08:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian gauge

Hi, can you tell me why you added expert and cleanup tags to Newtonian gauge? True, it is a stub, but I can't see why it needs either. It states the essential facts about the gauge, which is used for a lot for calculations in cosmology, and it has a reference. I have removed them, but if you reinstate them with a rationale, I'll endeavor fix the problems. –Joke 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 33% for major edits and 59% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 08:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawoodi Bohra

Please do not remove Islam category link from Dawoodi Bohra. Thankyou for your cooperation.

Siddiqui 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Bakr

The article is already in Category:Muslims, so there's no need for the less accurate parent Category:Islam. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see any explanation at Talk:Islam, so I've left a request for enlightenment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Covercropscarroll.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Covercropscarroll.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Universe

Hi, M, you might be interested/dismayed by my alarm over in WikiProject Pseudoscience. ---CH 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ziarah and ziyarat

Sure, merge them. I'd guess that they are just forms of the same word or root. Thanks for persevering on this.

P.S. I'm working on Khanqah. By the time I remove the stuff with no refs that looks dubious, I'm not left with much. If you could drop over and help, that would be great. Just give me a half an hour to finish the edit I'm doing. Zora 08:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Flandern POV-pushing at Speed of gravity

Well, it was inevitable. If you are not familiar with Tom Van Flandern's views on "the speed of gravity", whcih he insists on interpreting differently from the Entire Rest of the World, in a way which he is apparently unwilling or incapable of explaining coherently, see

• this summary
• Steve Carlip and myself arguing with TVF

Now see this for my brief explanation of why the edits from the Kirkland, WA anon are characteristic of pro Van Flandern. Email follows. ---CH 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kaababigcircle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaababigcircle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kaabacircle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaabacircle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kaabacleaning.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaabacleaning.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 09:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du'a

Can you add dua to [Category: Islam] and can you add that stuff that appears to the right of every artcile related to Islam? It usually says, part of a series of Islam in teh box. Its teh green colored box i'm talking about. See Islam to see what I a mrefering to. MuslimsofUmreka 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't. MuslimsofUmreka has taken over the Du'a article and used it as the basis of an essay on the "correct" understanding of Du'a, which is unreferenced, original research, and POV. Now he wants everyone to link to "his" article. Zora 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, if you actually look at the bottom, you will see that it is referenced and cited, and the artcile is talking about what du'a is in Islam. MuslimsofUmreka 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One author is not all of Islam. Muslims differ -- up to the point of violence -- on many things. Is the author of that book a Sunni? If a Sunni, is he a traditionalist, a modernist, or a Salafi? Or perhaps he's a Shi'a? Or a Barelvi? What do all the currents of Islamic thought have to say about dua? Zora 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the author has salafi roots, but I am taking out anything that is too the extremes and only including what is unanimously agreed upon. These are the concepts that sunnis, salafis, hanafis, and people from other madhabs would agree upon. There are some concpets discussed in the book that I am excluding because they seem to be extreme. These concepts include what the author feels to be bid'ah such as congregational du'as and wiping the face after du'a and many other topics. MuslimsofUmreka 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hillman

Thanks much for the barnstar. Can you move it to the bottom of my user page? I want to archive my talk pretty soon since I keep getting more angry messages from people upset over some past action of mine, and I'd like to try to move that kinda stuff out of view since I dislike the tone it sets.---CH 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime

In the second paragraph there is a sentence that is not a sentence. There is no verb, I think. I cannot figure out what this entence is supposed to say or I would fix it. Can you take a look? Complexica 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in the sandbox

Hi! I noticed that your sandbox User:Mpatel/sandbox contains several pages that still have the categories activated, so they're showing up in Category:Theoretical physics, Category:Special relativity, and several others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"controversial" tag

hi, just noticed that you had (perhaps by accident) added the wrong "controversial" tag to some main articles rather than the talk pages of those articles. the template that you used said that it should only be used on the talk pages of articles. thought you might appreciate the info. keep up the good editing work!

cheers, 128.12.119.157 12:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people from Hawaii

Hi thanks for your comments on this article! I agree the name should be changed to more accurately reflect the list; it's already been changed and merged (and split) several times already. Politicians and Native Hawaiians who are notable already have their own lists, for example. Earlier, the generic "list of people from Hawaii" had been merged.

I'd like your advice though-- lists like this are really prone to vanity listings, which I've recently been trying to weed out, and am worried that changing the name to notable might encourage more vanity listings than famous, but I'm not sure. If you think it's not a problem, then go for it-- and please clarify the description text at the top of the article to help define "notable", and to help discourage vanity listings.

Thanks!!! Santaduck 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rindler coordinates

Hi, the old version had text and figures not entirely correct, even seriously misleading. I have completely rewritten this from scratch with completely new figures. This is an important article for pedagogical purposes, and I am pleased that it seems to have come out fairly well. I think it would be suitable as a model article for WP GTR.

There is a discussion in Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox which unfortunately seems to have bogged down in mutual accusations of incompetence. This is regretable since several interesting points which I made there about the harmonic lattice are important for both Newtonian and relativistic physics. ---CH 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help today over at Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox, where User:Rod Ball (before registering, he posted in this talk page as the St. Mungo Housing Association anon from London) contradicts the mainstream viewpoint, as expressed in the current version of the article (which I completely rewrote with completely new figures), in the sci.physics FAQ, and elsewhere. In the diagram which he drew (look for the diagram just below his sentence "The following diagram shows successive positions of the rod in x-t coordinates of the launchsite or "lab" frame" in the first section), he is clearly either

1. confusing hyperbolic arc length with hyperbolic angle, or
2. confusing Rindler coordinate time with elapsed proper time since the t = 0 in the Rindler chart, as measured by the Rindler observers themselves.

He also doesn't seem to understand four-acceleration as the covariant derivative of the unit tangent vector to a timelike curve, i.e. he doesn't understand path curvature. He insists that his notion of acceleration, which he improperly calls "proper acceleration" (of course, the standard notion is the only one which deserves this name, since it is the acceleration measured by the observer himself using his accelerometer), is preferable. This incorrect claim also appears to rest upon his confusion either about hyperbolic arc length versus hyperbolic angle or about the relation of Rindler coordinate time to elapsed proper time measured by the Rindler observers. My discussion of these points is in Talk:Bell's spaceship paradox#Rod Ball's mistake?.

BTW, I just replied to your comment in my own talk page. Cheers!---CH 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my talkpage...

...you'll see that Netscott doesn't mind me editing that bit. "They question the circumstances of some of his marriages...and his marriage to Aisha, whose young age (said to be 9 or 10) at the time their marriage was consummated has been debated." just sounds awkward. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your change in the Muhammd (PBUH) article. I do not know your religion but your change was indeed made from a neutral point of view. Thank you. --- Faisal 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Muhammad (PBUH) article is not unprotected. You have made few changes in the past. Hence I thought that you might want to look and the new changes made. --- Faisal 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

Thank you, MathPhys.

I am afraid (I am an exile from the spanish Wikipedia) that a lot of blanking is on the way for that article. Please be watchful. Randroide 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article lacks objectivity. It has a lot of conspiracy theory shit in it. It's alla bout a campaign by right wing extremists. All of that should be in a separate article. Please take this seriously. Dmar

Prejudice

Whilst I endorse the efforts made by many to present fact in Wikipedia, the truth remains the the Theory of Relativity is EINSTEIN'S theory, and at no time does he make use of the word "inertial" anywhere in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Thus it appears to be Chris Hillman's and Ed Schaefer's Relativity with such as yourself endorsing their personal points of view, handing out gold stars like a first grade schoolteacher.

This, though, is but the tip of the iceberg.  

In 1905 Albert Einstein wrote a paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Some individuals (including contributors to Wikipedia) have maliciously and or carelessly misinterpreted this paper, either because they do not understand plain language or they have taken information from a second source, or they are prejudiced bigots or wish to promote themselves as theorists.

Firstly, the postulates:

Einstein wrote:

“It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena(1). Take, for example (2), the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion (3) of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples (2) of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium”, (4) suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities (5), the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. (6) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former (6), namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (7)”

Analysis: 1) Maxwell's electrodynamics were known to be incorrect in 1905. 2) The subject of the second paragraph is the example “reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor”. 3) The term “relatively” was understood long before Einstein and was essential to the Copernican view of the heliocentric versus geocentric universe. The principle of relativity is exceedingly simple and the example given, reciprocity, is sufficient for its explanation. The Sun appears to cross the sky daily from East to West, but by the principle of relativity it is the Earth that revolves upon its own axis from West to East. 4) The ‘unsuccessful attempt’ is a clear reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment. 5) “first order for small quantities”. This is a somewhat dubious statement, for if the quantities are large the implicit suggestion is that the principle of relativity does not apply exactly. ‘Girl meets Boy’ but ‘Boy does not meet Girl’ (or Boy meets Girl at some other epoch) which is absurd. That Einstein was unable to state the principle of relativity mathematically and used an example instead is a clear indication that the principle of relativity is an axiom and cannot be challenged. If Girl meets Boy, Boy meets Girl at the same instant in time. 6) Note that the word “inertial” does not appear here and neither did Einstein intend that it should. If he had, he would not have been able to state: “Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.” Those that include the word “inertial” are vandalizing Einstein’s theory in favour of one of their own. 7) There is no evidence to support Einstein’s second postulate, for it is akin to claiming a straight rod will bend when immersed in water, we can see it does. Of course what really happens is light is refracted. The same is true for light from stellar sources. What we see is a distortion, not reality, when light from a moving source is passed by light from the same source emitted earlier.

Einstein’s third “postulate” is “we establish by definition that the ``time required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time it requires to travel from B to A.” which is ridiculous when A is in relative motion with respect to B, yet this assertion is essential to the derivation of the so-called “Lorentz” Transformations which Lorentz do not produce.

Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs)

Hexenmeister, please review WP:NPA and other behavioral policies. In future please sign your talk page comments; see Wikipedia:Tips/How to sign comments. ---CH 02:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sahaba

I removed the template from the top of the articles. The new template, after your re-make, should go at the bottom. If you want it on the articles then you should go visit each one and put it on. Cuñado - Talk 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo

Dear MP,

Thanks for the nice note on my talk page. I'm not sure that I'm back. I'm so much happier when I'm on wiki-break. People who hate make me angry and hateful and I don't like that feeling. Zora 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments regarding {{catdiffuse}}. If you're looking to do some cleanup, I also have the WP:INT project going: that may give you some ideas. Cwolfsheep 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]