User talk:JFB80

Welcome

Hello, JFB80! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jesstalk|edits 14:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Discussion on the Mileva Maric Talk page

Dear JFB80: Thank you for expression of concern in your 16 September 2013 response to my reply to your comments. I am feeling a little better today (Tuesday) and will endeavour to give at least a partial response to your several points. In fact it may help me to focus on this topic, though I have to be careful not to put myself under pressure, which tends to produce a reaction. So my reply may be in separate contributions.

With appreciation, Allen Esterson Esterson (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dr Esterson: Thank you for your note. I hope you will soon be well enough to resume discussion. I see you have considerable knowledge about this subject which I do not pretend to have although I feel I may have a somewhat new point of view. Regards JFB

Thanks for your good wishes. I've been feeling much better for about nine days now – maybe the anti-depressant has kicked in. I appreciate the politeness with which you have conducted our exchanges, and the searching nature of your contributions. The process of responding (and occasionally checking back on sources) has, I think, helped me to consolidate my improved mental/emotional state. I appreciate that these kinds of exchanges can be time-consuming, and fully understand if you decide to discontinue your responses. However, if you have a specific point or question you want to raise I will be happy to respond to it.Esterson (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm glad these exchanges have helped you. JFB80 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, History of special relativity, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Archival undo

Hi JFB80, FYI please see [1]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oliver Heaviside may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as the [[Dirac delta function]].<ref>'''Electromagnetic Theory''',vol.II, para.271, eqns 54,55)</ref> He invented his [[Operational calculus|operator]] method for solving [[linear]] [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Minkowski space, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Spacetime metric sign convention

I was just reading the discussion on the talk page of Minkowski space. For what it's worth, I agree with you that $c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=c^{2}dt^{2}-(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2})$ makes more sense than the other convention. Dividing by $c^{2}dt^{2}$ results in $(d\tau /dt)^{2}=1/\gamma ^{2}=1-v^{2}/c^{2},$ which is correct. Dividing $c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2}$ by $c^{2}dt^{2}$ results in $(d\tau /dt)^{2}=1/\gamma ^{2}=-(1-v^{2}/c^{2}),$ which is incorrect. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the metric for the +++- sign convention is written $ds^{2}=-c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2},$ so it does yield the correct value of $\gamma .$ But I definitely don't like the negative value for $ds^{2}.$ Jrheller1 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved your comment from my user page to my talk page. If you wish to reply to me, you can do so here (I am watching your talk page). Jrheller1 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind me quoting your comment on the Minkowski talk page. I am so glad you make your latest comment because anything I say now, however obvious, is immediately rejected. I am finding this behaviour quite upsetting. Previously I said the same as you do now only to have it dismissed as 'off-topic'. Here is my comment (in reply to Chetvorno who said a choice of sign convention has no physical implication.

JFB80: Isn't c²dt² - (dx²+dy²+dz²)>0 (time-like) the condition for velocity to be less than that of light? (Einstein's 2nd postulate). Positive (+---), negative (-+++) If you don't think this suggests a sign convention then whatever would? (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The article continues to say a choice of sign convention has no physical implication. JFB80 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors at the Minkowski space talk page that the sign convention has no physical implication. It can't possibly have any physical implication because the two equations $c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=c^{2}dt^{2}-(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2})$ and $-c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2}$ are exactly the same mathematically. I just think that the +++- sign convention is clumsy notation: it makes $s=ic\tau$ rather than $s=c\tau$. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I look at it this way: $c^{2}d\tau ^{2}=c^{2}dt^{2}-(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2})$ and $c^{2}ds^{2}=dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2}$ are the two possibilities where we shall be looking for a positive square root for both dτ and ds. This will happen for dτ if the velocity v is less than c (time-like displacement) and for ds if v is greater than c (space-like displacement). In standard Special Relativity only the first is permitted when we are considering the motion of material particles. JFB80 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In the +--- metric, $s=c\tau$ and both $s$ and proper time $\tau$ are real unless the speed of the "moving" reference frame is greater than the speed of light, which is not physically realistic. In the +++- metric, proper time $\tau$ is still real but $s=ic\tau$ is imaginary for physically realistic scenarios. It seems clumsy to me to use imaginary numbers when they are not necessary. Jrheller1 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes no sense to use imaginary quantities with norms. All we have to do is to say there are two norms, namely ${\sqrt {(}}c^{2}dt^{2}-dx^{2}-dy^{2}-dz^{2})$ and ${\sqrt {(}}dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}-c^{2}dt^{2})$ . The first applies to time-like displacements and the second to space-like displacements. In relativity only the first has physical significance because the velocity must be less than that of light. Then we deduce, as you did, that the first is c dτ JFB80 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

More generally we can do the same with finite displacements Δx, Δy, Δz, Δt or with coordinates x, y, z, t which are displacements from (0, 0, 0, 0). JFB80 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hyperboloid model

You may be interested in

• Homersham Cox (mathematician)#Work on non-Euclidean geometry or
• Gustav von Escherich#Work on hyperbolic geometry,

as well as in the recent additions to

• History of Lorentz transformations

with a bunch of many other authors having historical variants of Lorentz transformations via Weierstrass coordinates, or via Cayley absolute, or via Cayley-Hermite transformation, or via Quaternions etc. --D.H (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear JFB80, I moved our discussion to Talk:History of Lorentz transformations#History of hyperbolic model, Lorentz transformation, which I think is the better place. If you disagree, please feel free to revert my edit. --D.H (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JFB80. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit at Wikipedia:Wikipedians

I've undone your edit at Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Have you any idea how that happened - were any tools or scripts involved? Because someone else accidentally posted an article over the page three weeks back. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

i didn't know about this. But I think it is not important. Thanks for the message. JFB

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikipedians‎‎. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@SuperMarioMan: I'm beginning to suspect that a software problem is involved. JFB80 overwrote the page twice, yes, but since 5 November, four other editors have made the same mistake. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this revert, see consensus in the discussion that I linked to in my edit summary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Galilean *invariance*

Hello JFB80, this is about your undoing of my 1072860212 revision to Inertia. Two points: a)I modified the page text by adding a link to the existing page Galilean invariance; b) in describing my edit I erroneously used the term "equivalence" instead of "invariance". Now, I would like to make sure that your undoing is related to point b) and to my use of the wrong term "equivalence"; in this case I could reply the page edit, using the correct term in comments. Should your message be related to point a) instead, could you please be more specific on your issue. Thank you Vbrm (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Vbrm, I have never seen the term Galilean invariance or equivalence used in the literature and think it is just a Wikipedia invention. In any case it needs a correct reference to the original source which does not seem to be there. The observation was apparently made before the appearance of Galileo's book but I don't know myself exactly when.JFB80 (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)