User talk:JhonASF

hello editors and admin. I am student of engineering. how can I add contributions/threads to wikipedia ? JhonASF (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JhonASF, welcome to Wikipedia! To get started, just find a page that needs improvement, click "edit", and then make the changes.  WP:Introduction has more on how to get started, and I'll leave a welcome message below this which has more useful links.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * }

EM and SR articles?
Considering this and this in connection with electromagnetism and special relativity articles and the name Asif Ali Laghari, are you user:Princeneil?

If not I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding. Best regards, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is Asif and Princeneil ? I don't know I only read his threat on the research journal and one of our physics professor took this journal to teach this Invention and I don't know this person(Asif Ali Laghari) seriously, who wrote this research paper.JhonASF (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Happy editing, M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I added thread on SR article by editing it, but I'm unable to see it on article page. What happened ? JhonASF (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this? If so, the edit summary says it all. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

how can I list(cite) the research journals/papers in (reference or journal article) section? JhonASF (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When you add a reference to a particular place, please use the ref tags:  at the point you want to insert the reference, and the template reflist in the references section. Then the references appear wherever the reflist is placed (the reference section) in the order they appear in the text. Numbering them manually is unnecessarily laborious and tedious and not required. See also Help:Referencing for beginners. At a later point you may also consider using cite book, cite article, cite journal, cite website, see also Template:Citation.


 * What I don't understand is the hype with this "theory" of charge variation. Electric charge is a property of matter, all massive particles have charge (zero, positive, negative). The "theory of charge variation" has been known for ages. The charge and current densities change according to Lorentz contraction and time dilation and are subject to the continuity equation. You can work out the relativistic changes in charge density and current density like this. The "Asif equation" looks like the charge density equation for a unit volume
 * $$\rho=\gamma(v)\rho_0=\frac{\rho_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\,$$
 * where ρ0 is the charge density of an object in the rest frame of that object and ρ is the charge density in a frame moving relative to the object with relative velocity v, and assuming zero current density J. Nothing new. I haven't read the derivation in detail but it is unnecessarily complicated. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not charge density, its equation of charge variationl like mass variation in SR, when I discussed it with my physics professor he said that no, it is really amazing work whoever has done it. it actually solves the mystery that why moving charge creates magnetic field ? why accelerating charge particle radiates magnetic field? This equation actually solves all these hidden facts if you read the full journal and I have got all that points interesting and will add them to the articles gradually JhonASF (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It is a "newly found" mystery solved by the great Asif (not Maxwell et al) that moving electric charges radiate electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell's equations can directly give inhomogeneous wave equations for the electric field E and magnetic field B. Taking the curl of Faraday's law
 * $$\nabla\times\mathbf{ E}=-\partial\mathbf{ B}/\partial t$$

and substituting Gauss' law
 * $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf{ E}=\rho/\varepsilon_{0}$$

gives the wave equation for E
 * $$\dfrac{1}{c^{2}}\dfrac{\partial^{2}\mathbf{ E}}{\partial t^{2}}-\nabla^{2}\mathbf{ E}=-\dfrac{1}{\varepsilon_{0}}\nabla\rho-\mu_{0}\dfrac{\partial\mathbf{ J}}{\partial t}$$

similarly taking the curl of the Ampere-Maxwell law
 * $$\nabla\times\mathbf{ B}=\mu_{0}\mathbf{ J}+c^{-2}\partial\mathbf{ E}/\partial t$$

and substituting Gauss' law
 * $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf{ B}=0$$

gives the wave equation for B:


 * $$\dfrac{1}{c^{2}}\dfrac{\partial^2\mathbf{B}}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^{2}\mathbf{ B}=\nabla\times\mathbf{J}$$

The equations imply that spatially and time-varying current densities J and gradients in charge density ρ will generate EM waves. And thanks for clarifying my suspicions that you are Asif, or user:Princeneil. Bye... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

can any one tell me who is thi Asif or princeneil? I'm confused, about whom you are talking? And why I've gone blocked?JhonASF (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Find the nearest mirror and gaze into it. There he is! OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

what the hell is wrong with you man???? have you gone crazy??? I don't know any asif or princeneil, I jsut read this thread in my university when my professor were discussing about this. that's why i added this here i thought it would be better in Wikipedia. but i don't understand your nonsense abusing and I got blocked without making any violation, is this Wikipedia???? i can't believe !JhonASF (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your English is identical to Princeneil's. You are obsessed with "Asif's theory", identical to Princeneil. You need to stop repeatedly lying and stop creating sockpuppet accounts. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not princeneil and this is my first account I've created, if you keep on making personal attacks i can make an article on you policy in news paper as I'm anchor also with the degree of mass communication. just stop it! I'm new here i didn't still know that what's your problem and about whom you all are just talking! Duhh JhonASF (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After you publish your article, please provide a link to it here. I am looking forward to reading it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh Mr, I didn't have made it nor I'm the author of that published paper. It is already published, its not my own research or something else. Okay! JhonASF (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your pledge to "can make an article on you policy in news paper," not your non-notable research paper that no professor in the world has ever talked about. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I will let you know soon what I'll do and make an article on your nonsense policy that abuse and makes personal attacks on innocent users! Gud bye! I'm still confused really what's your misunderstanding JhonASF (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you need any quotes from me or photos for your article. I took a photo of my cat yesterday. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

hahahahahahah Great fun with all of you Guys...:-) Its one and only one princeneil that's me. I was boring I thought i should make some fun with WP as you have made fun of me...:) and leaving serious note "in future you will surely write an article on my research work yourself". I was here to contribute for WP from last 3years, but none of you helped me that's why I made violations... Sorrrrryyyy for that and Bye JhonASF (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again for block evasion; please find a more constructive use of your time
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please try to get this into your head. For a while, each new sockpuppet you create may fool a few editors who have never seen your crap before. Before long, though, someone who has come across you before will realise who your are. When that happens, your attempts to abuse Wikipedia to promote what you have the nerve to call your "theory" will be reverted, and your sockpuppet account will be blocked. This means that you will have wasted time here and achieved nothing. Instead, you could have spent the time promoting your so-called "theory" somewhere else, such as on a blog. Perhaps even you have the intelligence to figure out from that it follows that it is not in your own interest to try to abuse Wikipedia to promote your ideas.  Your persistent lies ("I didn't understand, but I do now", and "I will not create any more accounts", and "this is my first account", and "I am so incredibly stupid that I genuinely can't see that what I am doing is trying to use Wikipedia to promote my ideas", and so on and so on) cut no ice at all. You are de facto banned from Wikipedia. Go away. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

perhaps you are right sir. I have discussed my theory with many professor and researchers, they are saying that "what you have made actually is beyond the scope of our imagination" and I got useless criticism from people, as Einstein got criticism when he first introduced his theory, same is the case with me as I'm big follower of my Genius Einstein. because my theory is actually new concept in Special relativity and Electromagnetism, Still there are many scientists who are working on the same project as I'm, but since in our country i don't have sources to grow up. It was my dream when i first came here in WP that I'll contribute in WP not only for my theory, but also with other articles which need modifications, improvement etc as I've much enough knowledge in Modern physics. but it couldn't be possible. kindly abuse me but not my research work, because science(nevertheless it is wrong or right) retains its value. Now tell me what can I do for WP if you really respect my work? I'm really serious now JhonASF (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thought. If your "physics professor" is really so incompetent at his or her job that he or she thinks that your crap is so brilliant as you claim, why don't you get onto the authorities at your college, and try to get him or her sacked? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As JamesBWatson said, you are seriously banned from Wikipedia, as you clearly are unable to or unwilling to understand our policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear I'm willing to know WP policies as much as I can, I'm really too much stupid that I've made such violations. But with my heart, I wanted to become wikipedian. Can you please provide me a way/link where I can made contribution in right way ? JhonASF (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Can I be contributor to WP or should I leave WP for forever ? JhonASF (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the perfect place for your contributions. Happy editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What should i do there? is this same as WP ? Can I add my research there ? JhonASF (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sooner or later... you will have to realize your "research" on the "theory of charge variation" is completely wrong, nothing useful, and nothing new to special relativity. When I said "nothing new" and "has been known for ages", I meant the Lorentz transformations of charges and currents is a long well-known result. The total charge of an isolated system e.g. subatomic particle moving in a field, is constant, which should be obvious given that electric charge is a conserved quantity.
 * The electric charge of a particle does. not. depend. on. velocity. The charge density of extended charge distributions does because of length contraction. But your spectacular result implies the charge on moving protons or electrons etc varies as they move in EM fields, which they do not. The charge on a proton is +e and for the electron −e for all speeds (less than light obviously). Also, the Lorentz force would be highly nonlinear in velocity, leading to an equation that does not agree with experiment. As the E and B fields are defined from the Lorentz force, well, that would screw everything up. In your "derivation", you even start from the Lorentz force which assumes the charge is constant, but find it varies.
 * But as you don't want to get it, so be it. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If and when your ideas get substantial attention in reliable mainstream sources, some independent, third party editor (not you) will no doubt write a decent Wikipedia article about them. Until then, your ideas do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whether your ideas ever become recognised or not, you are effectively banned from editing Wikipedia, because you have been so disruptive here. I have removed your latest attempts to use this talk page to tell the world about your theory, and I have removed your talk page access to prevent you from doing the same again. If I ever come across any more of your sockpuppet accounts, I shall revert any edits you make to any page, delete any pages you create, and block any accounts you create, removing talk page access as I do so, rather than wait for you to abuse talk page access and then remove it. I will not waste time telling you that I am doing that: I will just do it. Got it? You are not welcome here. Goodbye. If that wasn't clear enough, then I am sorry, but I have done my best, as other editors have done too. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)