User talk:TimothyRias/Archives/2012

Black hole revert
Is gravity not the force that gives black holes their incredible strength? In almost every dictionary definition of black hole, gravity is mentioned. The current definition of black hole is "a region from which nothing, not even light, can escape?" The question becomes what is keeping light and other objects from escaping. Is it not gravity? That is what I was trying to clarify. Cadiomals (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing that is keeping anything from escaping is a deformation of spacetime. Of course, the gravitational field according to GR is a deformation of spacetime. But, the problem with saying, that the gravitational field is too strong for light to escape, is that it confuses many people because light is not normally slowed down by force fields. The current definition immediately stresses that it is a geometrical effect.TR 06:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't get it. Isn't gravity basically the deformation of spacetime? What also could deform spacetime? Also I don't know if "light is not normally slowed down by force fields" is correct. Didn't Einstein's theory of relativity prove that gravity bends or slows down light? I just feel as though the current definition is missing something by not mentioning that gravity is the force that is keeping things from escaping. Was it ever discussed on the talk page? Cadiomals (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Even in general relativity "gravity" does not slow down light. Light moving "away" from a black hole is always moving at the speed of light. The odd thing about the geometry of a black hole is that you can move away from it at the speed of light, without getting further from the black hole. Phrases like "the gravity of a black hole is to strong for light to escape" simply do not cover what is going on, because they implicitly assume that gravity is a force (which it is not properly.) The current first sentence, quite accurately covers the technical definition of a black hole, as has been discussed quite a bit on the article talk page, and is supported by the cited sources.TR 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for clearing things up. Cadiomals (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator Sumanah (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Just wanted to say thanks for the earlier tip on citation templates, and for your recent thoughtful and polite comments on the tachyon page. As you can see I'm on a learning curve when it comes to editing wikipedia.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent section deletion at Tensor
You summarily removed the culmination of some effort by User:F=q(E+v^B), which was with the support of several other editors. Your edit summary Revert for now, lets find a better location for this similarly dismisses the result of a collective discussion. I suggest that before you repeat this deletion, that you actually make the effort of finding somewhere more appropriate to put it instead of simply deleting it. Your lack of prior involvement in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics makes your somewhat unconstructive and nonspecific comment unnecessarily sharp; none of us expects the contribution to be perfect at first as further editing might still be expected, but your views may border on WP:POV and are expressed in a way that might demotivate well-meaning (and productive) editors. — Quondum☏ 08:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Talking about notational conventions for concepts which are not discussed in an article is a bad idea. It is terribly confusing for a general reader. And very much out of place. TR 09:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Edits
Respected Sir, Hi, I just wanted to say that I am a fan of some of your work, especially the article on black holes. It gave me a fundamental and clear understanding of how black holes are formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk2001050 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ricci calculus
Hi, this article is awesome, the first time I have seen such a complete and transparent summary for this concept.

Well done and thanks to you all, and sorry this is so late (I would have awarded this earlier but don't get on WP much anymore). Best, Maschen (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * NP, just glad this could be resolved in a productive manner.TR 15:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Tim, just wanted to drop you a line to say that I've put together a set of responses to your points on the Hawking review,  would love to hear any futher points you may have :) Fayedizard (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, well, ditto my previous post - I've got some referencing work to do, but otherwise I welcome any further points you have - the article is certainly better and tighter after your influence. :) Fayedizard (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Tim, Made a bunch of changes today on the refs to bring them a bit up to scratch - how do you think we are doing on the peer review overall? Fayedizard (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, after a terrible delay I've just sorted out the alt-text for images on the Hawking article. Apologies for the delay. How are we looking generally on the review? Do you think that it might be able to hold its own at FA? Fayedizard (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should stand a fair change at FA. Note that there are still a couple of citations needed in the Films and series section, which need to be added before going to FA (should not be hard).TR 06:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it wasn't - and managed to be sorted before I got back to it :) wonderful. Thank you so much for all your help. You've unquestionably helped to make the article better.  My plan now is to bed the article in for about ten days to make sure that changes are generally fine for the consenus, and then stand it up again at FA - I'll let you know when I do - certainly I wouldn't ask you to support the nominatation - I think that you've already done so much in your review that that would be really asking too much - but I might ask you to pop over and repeat your assessment of the physics for the benifit of other reviewers (a key issue last time was that it wasn't certain that the coverage of his scientific work would stand scurtiny from someone with a background in the area) would that be okay? Otherwise I'm happy to quote the relevent part of the PR :) Thanks once again. Fayedizard (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you know, it's at FAC - thank you, it wouldn't have got there without you.Fayedizard (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
I've never liked Fig. 2 in Interferometry, nor have I ever figured out a use for it (I certainly don't refer to it in the text) and the only reason why I hadn't removed it before now is that I'd have to renumber all of the Figures starting from 3. Now you've forced me to renumber all of the figures. Thanks for the kick in the pants! :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was in a similar situation with the same picture in the speed of light article. It took me a while to figure out that it wasn't just me, but that the picture simply does not make sense. So, when I saw it today in this article which is up for GA, it thought I'd save you the headache.TR 22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Black hole#Classical mechanics is reversible
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Black hole. ― A. di M.​  16:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson
Could you please briefly outline the problems with the addition by Ownedroad9 on talk:Higgs boson? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson
Please take help from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/265088/Higgs-particle Thanks.-- ♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we take help from an article that contains that many errors?TR 10:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

link
I corrected the link here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. Hope that's ok, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No you didn't ;)TR 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Schwarzschild metric
On 2 September 2012 you undid my revision of the article on the Schwarzschild metric. My intent was to show the metric as written down by Karl Schwarzschild himself and to point out that
 * Schwarzschild's version is qualitatively different from Hilbert's version
 * Hilberts's version is the one everybody uses
 * Hilbert's version is referred to as the "Schwarzschild metric" despite the facts that Schwarzschild did not write it that way and that the two versions are not equivalent.

You labeled your revision (which undid mine) with the word "confused". Did you mean that you were confused or that you think I am confused? Please let me know what the confusion is.

Also, since I believe that my contributions were factually correct and that they are appropriate for the History section of the "Schwarzschild metric" article I'd like them to stay somehow. Do you see a way to jointly produce a contribution to the article that would satisfy both of us?

Thanks,

Rijkbenik (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)rijkbenik

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Field (physics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Maxwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Marie Curie GA review
Thanks for the review. In the future, I strongly suggest you notify the nominators (like me, in this case) on our talk pages. GA reviews don't show on watchlists; I only noticed it because I was checking up on the milhist B-class review and the reviewer there left comments on talk... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
````

Xh286286 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) 

Higgs talk page
Hi TR, could you please have a look at the discussion in the talk page of the Higgs boson article?. Thanks, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson again
I'm a bit concerned that the HB "History" section is more like a "History of the Standard Model". Not a surprise, as the history of the Higgs boson (and electroweak theory, Higgs mechanism etc) to a great extent is the history of the Standard Model or greatly overlaps it.

To fix this, much like the "search" section, a lot of this ought to be moved off to an article History of the Standard Model and summarized here. We have "history of..." articles for many aspects of physics but not for the SM itself. If we had such an article then this section could be (rightly) cut down a lot.

I've made a start at working on such an article here if interested and would like to ask for your help to keep an eye on it and suggest when it's at least capable of going mainspace. That way we can cut down the HB article history and link to that (new) article for the detail which would be good.

FT2 (Talk 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Extreme mass ratio inspiral
The DYK Project (Nominate) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)