|
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
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)
Hi JFB80, FYI please see [1]. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
I was just reading the discussion on the talk page of Minkowski space. For what it's worth, I agree with you that makes more sense than the other convention. Dividing by results in which is correct. Dividing by results in which is incorrect. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:16, 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)
You may be interested in
as well as in the recent additions to
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Regarding this revert, see consensus in the discussion that I linked to in my edit summary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
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! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
|
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
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)
Hi JFB80, FYI please see [1]. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
I was just reading the discussion on the talk page of Minkowski space. For what it's worth, I agree with you that makes more sense than the other convention. Dividing by results in which is correct. Dividing by results in which is incorrect. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:16, 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)
You may be interested in
as well as in the recent additions to
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Regarding this revert, see consensus in the discussion that I linked to in my edit summary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
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! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)