User talk:Ati3414

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!  Perfecto  03:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] discussions

Hi about text additions and deletes, every time I comment with it; and I agree with the above remarks. Discussions can be held on the page's discussion page, and for example they are being held on the back of the article on Trouton-Rankine. Please don't copy non-relevant text from articles into other articles (but if it wasn't you, then just ignore this sentence). Oh and don't forget to sign your comments! :)) Harald88 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know that they do not get signed unless I log in. Anyways, looks like we are disagreeing rather strongly on principle.

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please replace the speedy deletion tag with {{subst:afd}}}, and you can make your case for keeping the article by following the instructions by clicking the "Show" button in the AFD box on your page. Thank you. --NaconKantari 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing other peoples comments

Hi!

I noticed that you removed some comments from an article talk page [1]. I assume it was an accident (it is a big no-no). I can also see, that you removed comments from your own talk page [2]. While being more of a gray area, it is generally frowned upon.

Best regards, Rasmus (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments contained some personal stuff, I think this is also forbidden by wiki, no? You did not seem to notice that, did you?

I don't know which of the comments you are referring to. Warnings about copyright infringment / plagiarism doesn't fall under WP:NPA - and you really ought to have responded to it, rather than just delete the comments. Cleonis's comment about the case-sensitive link might have been phrased a bit more courteously, but it certainly didn't warrant removal. Anyway, no harm done, just please don't do it again. Rasmus (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of the Earth

Please take another look at the article. I believe you where two editor who recently inserted a mathematical caluculation of the age of the Earth. Another editor believes he has found fault with that calculation. See Talk:Age of the Earth#Mathematical Calcuation: Deletion?. Thank you. -- Ec5618 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the user making the complaint has not made a clear case, I am awaiting his/her answer to my counter. ati3414

Hi, I have moved the section in question to the talk page for discussion. To me, it appears to be original research - do you have a source for your calculations? Vsmith 00:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ati. I apologize for the opacity of my argument, hopefully the examples that I have placed on the original page have satisfied you. The discussion appears to be getting a little bit lengthy on the "age" page and I would be happy to continue it here.Rickert 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


No, they haven't and your continuing deletion are bs. Try to understand the method first, without listening to the bs of the guy that has no clue.


I replied to your message at User talk:Quarl. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 17:25Z


What do you mean by this. You said on my userpage "Don't mess with my article on Earth Age' If you don't understand it, talk to me, don't move it around and don't redirect it. Thank you.ati3414" What makes it your article??? Tell me what makes it your article. Wikipedia is a community, it is Wikipedia's article, not yours. Remember, you are a contributor to Wikipedia, you did not created it. You don't own the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. AFDs are driven by concensus from Wikipedians. Does this means, any article you create, cannot be deleted, moved or redirected. So if I nominate another article you created for deletion, then I must ask you. This is ridiculous. We have a duplicate page here. Btw please post your comments on my talk page, not on my userpage. Also, please do sign your comments with four tides like this, ~~~~. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read what Quarl said on his talkpage. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
While your conduct has been less than exemplary, I find your solution quite good. "Sample model for calculation in the first approximation". Excellent. Let's leave it at that. -- Ec5618 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you convince "VSmith" to leave it alone, now that we found a compromise? Ati3414 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm still not sure what the link actually adds to the article. Yes, it shows a simple calculation, but its usefulness in science has been brought into question. Perhaps you could think of a way to present your calculation as an educational tool, and a useful reference.
You could argue, perhaps, that a link to the calculation may help laymen appreciate the complexity of the actual calculations, as to many laymen, even your calculation is mindbogglingly complex. Of course, VSmith may argue in response that adding the calculation may give an unrealistic impression of the calculation that are actually used.
The second best advice I can give you, perhaps, assuming you have some control over the pdf you linked to, is to edit that document to carry a disclaimer, explaining that the calculation is based on some rather large assumptions, and should not be seen as definitive. Please look at your calculations are try to openly criticise it as much as possible. Candor. Once the link has been accepted (assuming it is) you should leave the document alone.
The best advice I can give you is to relax. Don't accuse other editors or policy of being 'the reason wiki is such a mess'. Don't suggest that what other editors say is 'bs'. We are all here to work together. You may find it easier to get people to see your point, when you are civil to them. -- Ec5618 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


"The second best advice I can give you, perhaps, assuming you have some control over the pdf you linked to, is to edit that document to carry a disclaimer, explaining that the calculation is based on some rather large assumptions, and should not be seen as definitive."

Thank you for the suggestion,I already did that.Vsmith seems to take delight into removing my writeup, he even took vengeance on it when it was listed in the "External Links" (which, according to wiki should have been ok). This was also the agreement struck with Ec5618 (see above). Oh well.....you can have it all for yourselvesAti3414 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Hi,
Please stop reverting Half-life. Two people have decided that the external link doesn't belong on the article. I can imagine three reasons for this:

  • The computational example is not very encyclopedic, partly because computational examples in general aren't encyclopedic unless they relate specifically to something in an article, and partly because of the assumptions that it makes.
  • It belongs in an article on radioactive decay or age of the Earth, not on half-life.
  • It's a PDF, which is deprecated according to this policy.

See also Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If you put the link in again, I'll report you for (apparently) violating the reversion rule. I've placed your talk page on my watchlist, so you may reply right here, to keep the discussion all in one place. --Smack (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surface Subdivision

Besides the question of selfpromotion and the question of relevance for the articles in question, you might want to review Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to. Springerlink requires a paid subscription to view the articles. Rasmus (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#External link regarding the age of the Earth. --Smack (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self promotion

As already brought up above by Rasmus, external links should not be used for selfpromotion. You have placed many external links on countless physics topics linking to your own work. Please review Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Thank you. Gregory9 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you tried to remove my comment from your talk page. As mentioned by Rasmus previously, this is generally frowned upon. I'd appreciate if you would actually stop your self promotion on Wikipedia. Thank you. Gregory9 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 24 hours.

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the Three-revert rule on List of Romanian-Americans. bogdan 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_2#External_link_regarding_the_age_of_the_Earth regarding consensus. --kingboyk 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Adding links to your own website is considered vanity, and many editors will call it spamming. Your knowledge of the subject is clearly of a high order, please do not spoil the value of your contributions by doing this. I am absolutely sure that there are editors who can help you with the LaTEX markup to get the equations you want into the articles. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

As a result of your harassing people off-Wiki and for making a very large number of edits of questionable integrity, I have blocked you for one month. -Splashtalk 14:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

1. There is no practical way in terms of adding my explanations for historical experiments. There are no converters from MS to LatEx

2. Even if there was an easy conversion , who would read a wiki post that extends on 10 pages and reads like a scientific paper

3. I would be more than happy to remove my name from the papers linked in if this would be an acceptable compromise.

You're not listening to the advice and links to policy that people are giving you. If you had, all of the above would be clear. I know you've seen the links, so try reading them and paying attention to what people are trying to tell you. - Taxman Talk 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photons in a box

I see somebody has reverted your edit, which indeed misses the point. You have the MECHANISM for how the photon energy in a box shows up as an extra weight g* (E/c^2). But this extra weight is not at all "pseudo" weight. It's as real as any weight and it's due to the mass of the trapped photon(s) bouncing back and forth. Single free photons have no mass, but single trapped ones do, since they are forced into a 2-object system, which has a COM frame, which gives the photon energy an invariant mass.

You'll notice, BTW, that your explanation applies to any particle in a box, not just a photon. This is the mechanism by which all trapped particles show their mass or weight in a system. Note that for a relativistic massive particle, this mass is proportional to relativistic momentum γmv, which means that the "mass" or "weight" measured for it is not just the rest energy, but the total energy. So the kinetic energy of the particle gets "weighed" too, and shows up as mass of the box. Interesting stuff, yes? SBHarris 00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it is intereting but misleading. I don't think the "extra weight" is anywhere close to g* (E/c^2) and I don't think the explanation based on E is correct. I think that the explanation based on p is the correct one. I also think my explanation is much cleaner.Ati3414 05:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. For the mass of the system is the same, even if the photon never hits the sides of the box. And even if you have no g-field. Systems of photons have mass, even with NO box. So do systems of decay particles from an event, a fact that high energy physicists use alll the time. I use the box in gravity field only as a teaching tool so you can "weigh" the mass of the energy inside (including heat, light, and kinetic energy of box particles). But the invariant mass of a system is there as the COM frame total energy, whether you actually "weigh" it or not. Or CAN weigh it or not. And yes, the extra is exactly what I said. Do the math and you'll see. Or I'll do it for you. I probably HAVE done it somewhere on some talk page. SBHarris 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Then why aren't you writing an entry on systems of photons instead of the very badly written "Photon in the box". Two of us already complained about the shoddy story, almost simultaneously. Write a scholarly piece or take the "photon in the box" out altogether. Ati3414 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please engage on the talk page if my latest modification leaves you cold. I'm looking for a compromise, but since I don't have a clear understanding of your objections, it's not certain that this helps. Please don't just revert it. You are familiar with the 3R rule, and it's time to heed the warning. Dicklyon 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Actually, you are one in 3RR violation, not me. In fact you are way past 3RR. If you revert again the statement "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by c2" -- which is the definition of relativistic mass -- at Mass in special relativity I shall definitely report you. --Michael C. Price talk 18:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Michael C. Price talk 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for relativistic mass of photon

For a citation for the fact that the 'relativistic mass of a photon' is not zero, see for instance:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Begin quote:

This question falls into two parts: Does the photon have mass, after all it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass?

This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not used much today. See also the Faq article Does mass change with velocity?.

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

               m = E / c2.                                    (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass. End quote

Therefore it is not incorrect to say that photons have relativistic mass. It would be incorrect to say that photons have invariant mass. The faq makes this quite clear.

I would add a textbook reference, but I don't have any textbooks so old that they actually use relativistic mass.

Due to NPOV, "relativistic mass" gets somewhat more play on wiki than it does in modern physics textbooks.

If you still disagree, cite some sources, per wiki:verifiability. I would strongly suggest citing your sources in the talk page before making any edits. Pervect 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Sure, see the paragraph "Photon mass, experimental limits" and its references :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon. As an aside, the John Baez FAQ is not exactly a scholar reference and it has been proven wrong and cotroversial in the past Ati3414 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the circularity of using a wiki reference to settle a wiki dispute, the current version :: of wiki does not support your claims. I.e. your own reference does not support your view.
begin quote:
In this sense, photons have nonzero mass, usually referred to as "relativistic mass" or "energy ::mass".
end quote:
I've added a 1934 era reference. (Tolman).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html does a good job of quoting
the literature. It's also by independent authors and has undergone
some review. You'll have to provide a much more creditable reference than wiki to support
changing the article as written. Pervect 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I asked you to read only the section on "photon mass, experimental limits" . Wiki editors write a lot of nonsense, the section that I mentioned is based on peer reviewed publications. I can provide you with the respective papers.Here is one of the more recent ones: http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/mu.pdfAti3414 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Which are irrelevant because they all discuss photon rest mass, which we all agree is zero. The rest mass of kinetic energy is zero, too. So what? The doesn't mean internal kinetic energy doesn't contribute mass to objects at rest. Of course it does. Kinetic energy can't even be localized, but it's there contributing mass to systems anyway. SBHarris 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as rest/relativistic mass for the photon. There is no mention of "rest" mass in the Roderic Lakes paper. There is no mention of "rest" in the Proca equations dating back from 1937 that are the foundation of the experiments on photon mass. There is no mention of "rest vs relativistic" in modern textbooks.When we say that the photon mass is zero we mean that the ONLY mass of the photon we can talk about has been assigned to be zero by QED and has been confirmed to be nearly zero by experiment. The only thing under discussion is the "photon mass" which has a limit of 6*10^-17 meaning that it cannot be equal to E/c^2 which would put a limit of about 3eV on the ONLY photon mass that we can talk about.That is, one can never attribute E/c^2 to the photon mass. Ati3414 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are blocked

Threatening to call the police on other editors is just completely over the top. I suggest you find some other endeavors, as Wikipedia has obviously gotten to be too much for you to deal with in a civil capacity. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ati3414 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.