Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weyes (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 26 May 2005 (reverting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Misplaced Pages:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log.
• If your first language isn't English, try Misplaced Pages:Contributing to articles outside your native language.

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the proper way to communicate with other users. To start a new topic, however, an easier way would be to click on the "discussion" tab and when a plus sign appears next to it, click on that. As for creating your own user page, click on the red tab that says "user page." Next, click on the tab that says "edit this page." You can then put pretty much anything you want on your user page and then save it. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

SQL error, and nanite

Hello, HappyCamper. The first problem the you saw is an intermittant database error that pops its ugly head up from time to time. Nothing to worry about, I'm told. :)

The second problem, about nanite redirecting to nanotechnology, is one of content (however, nanite – singular – redirects to nanorobot) You make a very good point that nanites shouldn't necessarily redirect immediately to nanotechnology, because they are two different (if related) subjects. However, nobody's taken the time to actually write a very good nanite page.

I looked over these pages, and there looks to be about 5

• Nanotechnology: a nice, primary article
• Nanite and nanobot: redirect to nanorobot
• Nanites: redirect to nanotechnology
• Nanorobot and nanorobotics: two pages that need to be merged (they are mostly redundant with nanotechnology, but some should be in nanite also.

Looks like you found a nice project: these pages are quite a mess. I would recomment that you do the following, but in the end its up to you:

1. Change nanite from a redirect to a real article
   • Merge whatever useful data you can from nanorobot and nanorobotics into your new nanite article
2. Change nanites from a redirect to nanorobot to redirect to nanite
3. Change nanobot, nanorobot, and nanorobotics into a redirect to nanotechnology (or whatever article you think is appropriate).
   • Any information left over, merge into nanotechnology.

If you don't know how to edit a redirect, here's the easy way: when you find that you have been redirected to, say, nanotechnology, you will see a small link on the top left of the page, just beneath the article title, that should read like this: "(Redirected from Nanites)". Just click that link, and you'll find yourself at the redirect page itself. :)

I hope that I was helpful, and feel free to ask me anything, anytime! – ClockworkSoul 15:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

quantum harmonic oscillator

Hello. You used too many capital letters in your new section headings; see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. I fixed them. Michael Hardy 03:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I TeXified most of quantum harmonic oscillator and noticed that Charles Matthews redid nondimensionalization with italics and sub- and superscripts. I thought I'd point out that although many prefer simple italic text if possible when the math is in-line with text, large equations should always be marked up in TeX for readability. For guidance on this see Typesetting of mathematical formulas and the more extensive meta:Help:Formula or look at what's been done on similar pages. --Laura Scudder 00:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You should probably double check the equations sometime, because on a few on nondimensionalization I might have lost count of parentheses, so I'm not positive I'm grouping terms appropriately. --Laura Scudder 01:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pentominoes

You did everything just right :)

The reason you weren't seeing it is because that page is made of nested templates. In order to see it, you'll have to "purge the page cache". There's a link near the top of the page that will do that for you. Hope this helps! – ClockworkSoul 03:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox in user namespace

It's your userspace. Do whatever you want with it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:15, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Just doing my job

Thanks (which did you have in mind? There must be hundreds — Category:Candidates for speedy deletion could keep me busy all day). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I do that too (just using the page). It can get depressing, though, when the number of cretin-attacks rises. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JIMBO WALES

I went to block him, and it had already been done three times, nearly simultaneously... But the way, you can refer to another user aither by typing ] giving User:JIMBO WALES, perhaps with a pipe, ] giving cretin, or by typing {{user|JIMBO WALES}} giving JIMBO WALES (talk · contribs). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thank you for the thanks message on my talk page. It is very nice to be appreciated. I sometimes wonder if sorting the stubs is helping. RJFJR 16:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete question

Good question. I was curious about that myself once. But as it turns out, when the article is actually deleted by an admin, it also disappears from your contribution-list. Shanes 03:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Burkhard Heim

Hello there. Well, your re-structuring of the article Burkhard Heim was quite good - I only had those reservations about the publication, really. I added the Selector Calculus page as there was a link and nothing in it yet. Thanks for expanding it too. Now I must admit I am still looking for the precise definition of it. The only place I know where there is a decent glossary is http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/heim_begriffe/schirmfeld.html (and associated pages). The explanation of terms are somewhat cryptic, though. E.g. for this one there is

"Selektor: Eine Auswahlregel, die aus der Menge positiver ganzer Zahlen Funktionswerte auswa"hlt oder u"ber einem allgemeineren Zahlenko"rper erzeugt. ", which translates about as:

"Selector: A selection rule, which, from the set of positive whole numbers selects function values or generates (them) for a more general set of numbers."

I've asked for some clearer def--hughey 08:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)initions and hopefully will have these soon. It IS possible to get the books via RESCH Verlag ( http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/heim_hauptwerke/titel_preise.html )- I got volume 2, which was expensive enough (about 90 Eur) and though interesting to thumb through it, rather difficult to get into - I would need a lot more time and also an introductory pamplet would be useful. But I fear this is not yet available. The nearest to this might be vol. 4, for another 50 EUR. Mail IGW at uibk dot ac dot at for orders.

On the archiving of the discussion - okay, as long as it is still accessible somehow and the summary is comprehensive and balanced enough. --hughey 07:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The talk page has been quite well archived - thanks for all the work there. One point though in the summary:

"The articles on Heim should make explicit and clear that Heim's work would need to be peer reviewed and rigorously analysed before it can be taken seriously in the scientific community " ---> this is a bit out of date and maybe should read:

"The articles on Heim should make explicit and clear that Heim's work needs to undergo more peer reviewing (several peer reviewed papers have now been published - including a prize-winning one on aerospace applications) and rigorous analysis before it can be taken more seriously in the scientific community."

Oh and by the way, I only now saw the recent flare up of the discussion on 'E'. I don't want to add further fuel to that as we all covered it extensively already and the positions are fairly entrenched. Suffice it to say that (a) I stick with the analogy 'Pressure = Force/ Area' - if here we constrain Area to be always 1 m**2, then we must always consider the force through that area to get pressure. (b) The Selector Calculus issue is related: another reason to understand it better, as the explanation of E in Heim's 2nd volume involves a projection operator from a higher dimensional space onto a sub-space. This involves a selector, so if one had a better insight into this calculus, one would almost certainly come to the nub of the matter regarding 'E'. Maybe you realised this already and it expalins your interest in S.C. --hughey 08:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those 4 volumes do indeed cover all that Heim published in his lifetime, warts and all - i.e. volume 1 is still not totally error-free, though better than before. And yes, it is the famous 2000 page write-up. Note, though, that Heim left behind lots of notes that were never published - Haeuser has thes and is sifting through them, so may eventually add to the body of work. In principle one could glean a quite thorough understanding of Heim Theory by reading the already existing 4 volumes. If you have the money to spend on these then you could do worse than getting the set - Resch also offers some volumes on the late John Paul II`s list of saints: they are probably more popular at the moment!. However, there is a caveat - physicists who have gone through them took on average over 1 year of intense study before they came to grips with the concepts there. If you have the time to invest, then by all means try that. Alternatively, or in addition to that, you could also follow what appears on www.heim-theory.com - apparently in May Droescher will post a rigourous derivation of the eigen-value equations that are the basis of the mass formula. And on that web site they try to keep to normal mathematical notation.

Nice insertion of equations into Heim-theory, and extensions of external links on Burkhard Heim. Just one point in the latter: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/~hasselmann.klaus/metron.php has actually nothing to do with Heim-theory. It's either a weird coincidence or somehow similar sources of inspiration in the naming of these entitites, as at first glance Hasselmann seems to be in the same ball park - talking about "a unified field and particle theory is developed from Einsteins vacuum gravitational equations, Ricci tensor RLM = 0, in a higher dimensional space" - however, looking at some of hte papers, he never mentions Heim and refers to the metron as a 'non-linear soliton type solution' of a higher dimensional form of Einstein's equations. Nothing is mantioned about a surface area, and though he mentions a possible derivation of masses there is nowhere an indication of successful accurate values being derived. Strange congruent, therefore, but actually different approaches unfortunatley taking the same name. Confusion all round! Anyway, well done again on all the other work.--hughey 08:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like all those notices on the Burkhard Heim page. If I click into a page and see that it needs to be wikified and cleaned up and is disputed then I think there's something seriously wrong with it. So if no Misplaced Pages good fairy chances along and acts on those mighty quick, I'm going to remove them. Heim has suffered enough insults without added this! --hughey 15:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about last comment - you seem to have been right with the notices - at least one other very interested person was made aware of Heim in that way. The edits to Heim-Theory are very good - the equations and list of the differnet hermetry forms and their correspondence to elementary particles and the Standard Model. Let's hope Droescher pubishes his recent work soon - he should do so in May. --hughey 10:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw your plea for biographical info. I think the best place for that is still the 'Nachruf' or Obituary that Von Ludwiger wrote and place on Heim-theory.com, i.e. http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/nachruf.pdf . now it is in German: but if you want to practice your German before reading those 4 volumes thsi would be a good place to start. Alternatively I can glean info on all the points you mention there from this doc. if you prefer, I will do the latter. I also saw that colour representation of the matrix decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor. Maybe later when I have some time I can replace the black & white version already on Heim theory. By the way, I agree that there are wonderful people working on Misplaced Pages - you are one of them!--hughey 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi - well, all the info on those articles in magazines etc. came from the obituary I refer to above - it's a long article by Von Ludwiger. Now I never met Heim himself, unfortunately, but I have met Von Ludwiger and know him slightly. He knew Heim well, so all that is in that 'Nachruf' is reliable information. The references as I give them are all that is there, though - I'm not sure if anywhere on-line there are archives going back that far. Possibly in some collections or in the annals of the magazines themselves. As for the paper you mentioned (in Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung), yes, I'm well aware of it, though I haven't actually seen a copy yet. --hughey 21:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it is better to get the original sources rahter than rely on reports from the Heim theory group. The old number of Stern should be available, and that of le Figaro: I will look for how to order them. As for the equation you quote, it looks familiar, but I can't place it right now. Its form is similar to a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian, but on the other hand the factor 32/3 turns up in comological expressions relating size of universe to the metron etc. Do you know yourself, or shall I dig deeper to determine its exact nature?--hughey 12:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is my translation of Von L's answer on that equation in the 1977 paper: "This formula deals with the basis for the scalar function of the Gravitational potential, obtained from energy relations for field and source of the gravitation with the position-dependent mass m = m(r). From this equation the limit of the range of the gravitation can be derived. For the latter Heim gets the relationship r ' = h²/G m³. If the Russel mixture is used for m, then one gets a value of about 46 Mpc for r', which corresponds roughly to the diameter of galaxy clusters." --192.171.3.126 12:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC) Oops - forgot to logon in last paragraph. So you see, the equaion had a cosmological connection. --hughey 12:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the limit is on the gravitational influence of mass m where r'=h²/Gm³ --hughey 12:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Haueser's site has a new URL - those Salzgitter pubications now at http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html - I've edited the external links on Burkhard Heim accordingly. Also, tried to get 1957 Stern in Ebay - but the collection I got only had stuff on film stars etc. However, a query direct to Stern turned up a 1954 issue with article on Heim - I've asked for a copy of that. --hughey 06:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I just got a reprint of a Stern article from 1954 and the opinion is plainly stated that he is a young genius.There are photos of Heim with Prof. Becker of Goettingen Univ. - who is described as his teacher or mentor. So that's one addtional independent source. Another is your 'Zeitschift fuer Physik..." article of the Max Planck institute. Yes, I'd be interested to see your derivations - maybe Von Ludwiger would too. Oh and I replied to some questions on the Heim-theory talk page - maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the Van Flandern thing, but it actually is interesting, even if it in a way works against Heim - see e.g. http://www.metaresearch.org/home/Viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp and for background http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp. Fascinating debate. Maybe Heim-theory gets around aberration some other way than putting in ang. momentum conservation by hand... --hughey 08:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Archiving Article Talk

Hi Happy,

Policy is to not make changes to the content of article talk pages--i.e., no rearraging, changing or abridging others' comments, condensing, interpreting, or removing material (sometimes excepted for obscene vandalism). Archive by cutting off the top however-many messages and placing them in one or more article talk archive files (based mostly on convenient file size) with a link to the current talk page.

You can start a subpage if there is some particular topics within the subject of the article that editors would like to discuss separately. Example: if there is a current controversy over President Joe Blow's Presidential Library that is so extensive it would overwhelm all the other blah-de-blah about President Joe, you could start a separate Talk:Joe_Blow/Presidential_Library. Of course, a problem is that many editors will continue to put their comments on the main talk page anyway.

You can also (or alternatively) start a discussion in your own user space: User:Happy_Camper/Joe_Blow_is_no_crow. Hope this helps. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Check the edit history before marking something as a speedy-deletion candidate, please. :-) Evercat 23:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it would be unfortunate if our rather lengthy Mozilla Firefox article got accidently toasted. :-) Keep up the good work though. Evercat 23:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for the help. I noticed you wish to work on something involving polymer chemistry are you actually a chemistry major (professor), or are you just interested in chemistry? Stitchy 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heim Theory

I'm happy you liked the stuff I added to the Heim Theory page. I think it's a very interesting theory, and I want to learn as much as possible of it. Unfortunately, my math skills are nowhere near enough to fully understand the theory, and, as you will know, most of the articles available are written in German, a language that I don't speak. So the only thing I can do is to read Droescher and Hauser's papers, and try to extract as much information as possible.

--Pezezin 23:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for the heads up. I will be sure to add the chemistry page to my watch list and check up on it whenever I have free time. User:Stitchy

Text for translation

Hi. I've already translated the text as you requested. I went to the website and translated only the passage on Burkhard Heim. When I went over to the article, however, I saw a tag announcing a neutrality issue, which means that there is some sort of dispute amidst the people directly involved with the article. Furthermore, simply adding a direct translation of the French text to the article is probably a copyright violation. It would probably be better to take inspiration from it but write our own text. For those reasons, I've posted the translated text on the article's talk page, so that the people more involved with it (I suppose you are one of them) can better decide how to best use it. Feel free to review it if you wish. Regards, Redux 01:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

reverting

Heya, thanks for your reversion of WP:RD. There's a slightly easier way to do it though, see Misplaced Pages:How to revert a page to an earlier version. --W(t) 16:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)