text:
Talk:General relativity/Archive 1

Older discussions
For the purposes of readability perhaps the sentence "Early on, Gauss decided to test this assumption and found (with experiments using the crude equipment of that age)." should be modified to include what he found :)

I don't have the knowledge to update and thought I would mention it here so that someone more informed in the area could execute the update.

Steve.

I put in some links and rescued the field equation from the previous version. I think we also need to explain the differences between Newton's and Einstein's theory a bit, for instance as they relate to black holes. --AxelBoldt

The current text mentions 2 things as fundamental in general Relativity:
 * 1) You need a reference frame to describe motion
 * 2) Reference frames can only be defined with respect to material objects; the text seems to imply that these are gravitating and therefore G.R. is a theory of gravitation too.

I do not believe the 2nd assumption is true, and esp. not its implication. I have a different perspective: suppose that the principle of General Relativity can be formulated as follows:

"Laws of physics must be formulated in such a way that they are independent of the frame of reference of the observer."

So G.R. is a theory about theories of physics, as much as a theory of the physical universe itself. It is a recipe for making good theories, which may or may not be consistent with the universe as we actually observe it. The popularity of thought experiments in G.R. demonstrates that its focus is on how we should describe the world, rather than how we actually observe it. The theories work only as far as the universe itself is consistent, understandable, and can be described by logic and mathematics - and there is no a priori reason that it is this way. But to the extent that the universe can be described by theories, the principle formulated above gives an important property of a "good" theory.

Implications for the theory of G.R. based on this principle:
 * 1) Light has a constant velocity.  It is well known that Einstein was troubled by the description of induction in a coil in a variable magnetic field: depending if you are in the coil or in the magnetic field, the one generates the other depending from you perspective.  Indeed, the Maxwell-Heavyside equations do not require different formulae: exactly the same equations can be used and applied in your local frame of reference, and the results are identical if you go to the other frame.  So this is a "good" theory.  Now from these equations the velocity of light can be computed, and it is a constant, independent of your frame of reference.  Of course an absolute velocity that is not relative to observers is in conflict with Galilean dynamics.  Einstein drew the ultimate consequence, and chose to adjust the geometry of space rather than the theory.  The Lorentz transformations immediately follow from this choice, and are the only solution consistent with this choice.
 * 2) Gravity == acceleration.  In a thought experiment, you can play billiard in a train that moves with constant velocity, and not notice that it moves.  If it accelerates however, you will notice because the inertial mass of the  balls will drive them to one end of the table (your local frame of reference).  Now exactly the same will happen if the train moves up a slope with constant velocity: they will roll downhill because gravity pulls on their gravitational mass.  However, you are unable to distinguish this event from the previous one -- iff inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass.  So a "good" theory would describe both events with the same equations.
 * Now in another thought experiment you are in an elevator that is accelerated, and a beam of light is sent through one of the sides. Because light has a finite velocity, its path in the elevator case (your local frame of reference) is curved.  Now from the previous thought experiment, we require that our theory does not distinguish this situation from the situation that the elevator moves with constant velocity in a gravitational field.  Therefore a "good" theory of G.R. predicts (requires!) that light is deflected by a gravitational field - and this has been actually observed.

-- Tompeters

I am not a physicist, so I consider myself a good example of the intended audience for this article. Is it fair to say that the theory of General Relativity asserts that one can and should represent gravity and acceleration in the same terms? Parts of the artical seem to suggest this, but in very indirect and wordy ways. I realize that not being a phycisist I may be misunderstanding the article. Whether my supposition is right or wrong, either way it seems to me that this article could be clearer (and I do not mean to diminish the work of specialists who have already done much to put this in accessible prose) Slrubenstein
 * Yes. This is called the principle of equivalence (of Inertial mass and gravitational mass). The problem is "how to design an experiment to distinguish the effects of these posited features". Thus, the use of an eclipse to detect the bending of starlight. Or, the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

An update earlier today changed static universe to steady state universe. This seems to me potentially misleading. There is an article on the steady state theory. This proposed that the universe was expanding, but that matter was being spontaneously created to maintain the universe's average density at a constant value. I am not certain of the situation in general relativity, but, reasoning by analogy with electromagnetism, I would hazard a guess that general relativity implicitly asserts the law of conservation of mass-energy in the same way that Maxwell's equations implicitly assert the law of conservation of charge. -- Alan Peakall 17:49 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

A small correction: nothing in special relativity implies that spacetime be non-Euclidean: indeed, the paradigmatic geometrical interpretation of special relativity, Minkowski spacetime, is Euclidean; it is sometimes called complex-Euclidean just because differently-moving observers map space and time axes onto it differently. But for any given coordinate system parallel lines never converge. In general relativity they can converge--spacetime is curved--and that's where Non-Euclidean geometry enters the picture.

I also agree with above comments that this article seems unable to decide whether it's written for physics majors who don't know relativity yet, or for laymen who don't know physics.

Michio Kaku's book on M-Theory, 2nd ed. spells vielbein as 'vierbein' as in 'eins' 'zwei' 'drei' 'vier', or 1 2 3 4. Ref: Kaku p.560, eqns. A.2.23
 * I've seen both spellings, and not knowing German, I have no idea which is right. Phys 11:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vier means four and viel means many --Dmr2 11:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Explanation to User:62.211.229.30 for removing GR is inconsistent...

General relativity is inconsistent in several respects:

 * Do you mean internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other aspects of physics?

It claims that a physical action can result from a 'subject' (i.e. space-time) which has no physical reality but exists only as an idealized, mathematical concept;

 * All of modern physics assumes that physical reality has a one-to-one correspondence with idealized, mathematical models, but that at any given time, the favoured models are a limiting case of some deeper, more complex mathematical model. You are providing an argument against conventional philosophy of science in general, not against GR.

Although physical forces are frequently described by gradients of some potential function, this is in principle not acceptable as the fundamental form for the interaction as it implies a non-local nature (a gradient can not be defined through a point);

 * A gradient is a limit (mathematics). It can perfectly well be defined at (or towards is probably better) a point.

There is no reason why a motion due to gravitational forces should be described by a different concept than those for electrostatic interaction for instance; however for the latter the force does not depend on the mass (whereas the resultant acceleration does), therewith invalidating the concept of space-time curvature as an objective and unique quantity for describing the motion of objects in force fields;

 * You are saying that both electrostatic interaction and gravitation should be described by the same concept. This is a desire, not an inconsistency. See e.g. GUT or i guess supersymmetry or brane theory for attempts to unify all the forces.

Einstein claims that the alleged space-time curvature around massive objects will affect the path of light rays as well. This is an unallowed generalization as the concept was derived to describe the gravitational interaction, but electromagnetic waves are immaterial and massless physical objects. Effects that apparently confirm this prediction of General Relativity could well be explained by other mechanisms.

 * EM waves may be 'massless', but they do possess energy, and by E=mc ^2 they will respond to a gravitational field (i.e., they will be affected by spacetime curvature).

 * This is not an inconsistency. On the contrary, if massless objects did not respond to alleged geometry in the same way that massive objects do, then there would be an inconsistency in GR. BTW, the observations of gravitational lensing in clusters of galaxies are very nicely explained by GR.

 * In fact, the analogy that photons have equivalent mass is not so great. It works OK for the redshift/blueshift in a gravitational field (Pound/Rebka experiment) but simplistic attempts to get the deflection of light correct give half the right answer. Eventually, one has to face the fact that spacetime has a structure, which allows for timelike geodesics ("freely moving" particles, i.e. subject only to gravity,) null geodesics (light rays), spacelike geodesics (representing, for example a tightly stretched weightless string), and other timelike curves such as the world-lines of particles under electromagnetic or nuclear forces.

Pdn 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you wish to start a page on alternatives to general relativity, please do so - there's been a lot of experimental work to try to find alternatives to GR - e.g. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node9.html - but please first read and understand the pages on calculus - with wikipedia it's much more efficient than in the pre-web era, but you do have to spend some time clarifying your intuition, searching out and replacing the fuzzy bits, and even, just maybe, doing some hand calculations with pen and paper, as well as computer-aided stuff.

Boud 13:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * ... its origins go back to the axioms of Euclidean geometry. ??

Does that make sense? It appears to be based only on the fact that general relativity relies on a non-Euclidean geometry in which one of Euclid's axioms does not hold. Is that fact enough to justify this assertion? Michael Hardy 23:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * More than one, actually. Remember we're really dealing with a pseudoRiemannian manifold here... Phys 18:30, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * There were attempts to prove it from the other axioms back in Euclid's time, implying that they did not believe that it was valid as an axiom(not sufficiently obvious), but thats about as far as the link goes

67.123.41.95

So a chunk of mass-energy distorts space-time around it, and any other chunk passing by would have its path changed in a manner we call gravity. So, what if we have two chunks that are stationary, where they would each set up space-time distortion. I think that two chunks would have so-called "gravitional attraction" towards each other, but why? Neither chunk had an initial motion. Or does the passage of time count as a motion in this case (which kick-starts the space-motion "attraction")? Or does every particle since the universe began have an inheirent motion (so the initial stationary assumption can never happen)?

 * I am not a physicist, but I'll give this a try. By stationary, I'll assume that you mean that the two objects are in an inertial state and have the initial condition that the distance between them is not changing (some exterior force has been keeping them stationary and has just released them). The curvature of space and time is such that for them to stay in their inertial states they will start moving towards each other. --Edwinstearns 15:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Q: Why there is so called "gravitational attraction"?
 * A: Because speed of light (c) decreases in vicinity of a mass (M) (Shapiro effect) and so the internal energy of any object of mass (m) equal $$E=mc^2$$ drops along the distance towards mass (M) as $$dE/dr=G M m/r^2$$where (G) is Newtonian gravitational constant and (r) is the distance between centers of masses (m) and (M). So in Einsteinian gravitation it is not an "attraction" but a force resulting from the change of internal energy of mass (m) because of gravitational time dilation. The same force but different physics than Newton's. Jim 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states: "A continuing unsolved challenge of modern physics is the question of how to correctly combine general relativity with quantum mechanics, thus applying it also to the smallest scales of time and space." Would such a combination necessarily constitute a theory of everything? If so, perhaps that should be noted. --LostLeviathan 15:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1919 confirmation: bending of starlight during a solar eclipse
The fact that light is bent by gravity is not particular confirmation of general relativity: assuming Newtonian gravitational mechanics applies to light particles like everthing else also predicts bending. The issue is the amount of bending and the difference between the two predictions is a testable factor of two. But I thought something strange happened in 1919. I remember reading that there were three attempts to measure the degree of bending: one was clouded out, one was close to Newtonian predictions and one was close to General Relativity;      Eddington decide that the third was better technically than the second - and later measurements have confirmed this. --Henrygb 23:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge Newtonian gravitaion would only predict the bending of light if light had mass. In Einstein's model its not so much that light is bent more that the geometry of spacetime itself is curved by mass so anything travelling in a 'straight' line will follow the curve. --LiamE 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you can get half the Einstein ans by assuming mass = energy/c^2 and momentum equal to energy/c. But there it little point because so much else comes out wrong in Newtonian approaches. For example, although Pound and Rebka and Pound&Snyder were careful to talk of an equivalent weight of photons in their Mössbauer experiments, you also get a clock-rate difference which cannot be explained on Newtonian terms. In Einsteinean terms that's the whole reason for the frequency shift, but with the "equivalent mass" idea clocks run at a synchronous rate between tower top and bottom, while the falling photon gains mass-energy, and that's wrong.Pdn 16:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Sagnac Effect
Cleon Teunissen 12:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sagnac Effect

It seems to me an article on General Relativity should take account of the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is demonstrated by the experimental setup called ring interferometry. You can split a beam of light, have the light go around a circuit in both opposite directions, and then you allow this light to create an interference pattern. For example, you can make the light take a square path by setting up mirrors on the corners of a square. This setup measures absolute rotation. One of the first experimentors to conduct this type of experiment was called Sagnac, he conducted his experiment in 1913, and the effect is now called the Sagnac effect.

According to the sources I studied the Sagnac effect is a genuine physics phenomenon. According to the sources I studied both special and General relativity imply that absolute rotation can be measured.

In the article it is stated: The fundamental idea in relativity is that we cannot talk of the physical quantities of velocity or acceleration without first defining a reference frame, and that a reference frame is defined by choosing particular matter as the basis for its definition.

It seems that ring interferometry doesn't measure rotation with respect to chosen particular matter. It measures absolute rotation.

A ring interferometry experiment in New Zealand

Problem: Yes, in simple cases one can discuss absolute rotation; in fact, with respect to what would a Kerr black hole rotate otherwise (ans: asymptotic spatial infinity). That argument points up that to define absolute rotation you have to go to infinite distance, asymptotically. Look at the confirmation of the Lense-Thirring effect using satellites recently, and in progress with Gravity Probe B. Locally, you can define a "nonrotating" frame with your ring laser (why bother?  Use a couple of gyroscopes! Gyroscope technology came long before ring lasers.)  Anyway, this local frame you just found does not tie in to a nonrotating frame defined by distant stars, quasars, etc. So if you believe that one, you are stuck. If you do not believe that frame based on distant obects is the nonrotating one, you have to explain how stars and galaxies many thousands of light years away are all orchestrated to move as they seem to. Pdn 19:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Laws of physics are always formulated in one frame of reference
Cleon Teunissen 15:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is often stated:

 * "Laws of physics must be formulated in such a way that they are independent of the frame of reference of the observer."

It seems to me that for clarity it is better to phrase the condition above as follows:.

 * "To do physics it is necessary to have transformations available for transforming between frames of reference.

In newtonian dynamics, a velocity is transformed from one inertial reference frame to another by adding the velocity vectors. The newtonian laws of motion are formulated in just one frame of reference; independency of reference frame is provided by the assurance that in all calculations velocities can always be transformed. In the 19th century, it became apparent that if one assumes that the Maxwell equations are correct, and that the newtonian transformations apply, then it should be possible to measure velocity absolutely. Einstein recognized that if one assumes that the Lorentz transformations are the appropriate transformations, then all inertial reference frames are indistinguishable.

The Maxwell equations are formulated in just one reference frame, it's the physicists choice of appropriate transformation that determines whether any law of physics has effective independency of reference frame. A calculation is performed in the one reference frame that a law of physics is formulated in. If and only if the approppriate transformations are available, observers can scientifically agree. Their observations can come out differently, they can subsequently transform their results to the frame of reference of the other observer, and find agreement.

Einstein didn't reformulate any laws of physics individually: by providing the right transformations, all formulations of laws of physics were provided with extension into relativistic inertial frame indepence. (As it turned out, for example a new relativistic momentum had to be found, in order to have a momentum that displays conservation of momentum.)

In newtonian dynamics, it is relatively straightforward to transform between an inertial reference frame and an accelerating reference frame: linear addition of vectors. The acceleration vector (usually a function of time and/or spatial coordinates) is added to the velocity vector (also a function). For the reverse transformation, the same acceleration vector is used, with the sign reversed. So newtonian dynamics has transformations for non-inertial frames of reference.

Einstein's effort to develop General Relativity was not a program to redesign the formulation of all laws of dynamics, it was a program with two goals: to find the appropriate transformations involving non-inertial reference frames, and to find a new theory of gravity in which gravity travels through space at lightspeed. The two goals turned out to be even more profoundly connected than anticipated: to an accelerating observer, space-time appears to be distorted; with gravity, space-time is. Cleon Teunissen 15:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Dynamic Universe"

 * Tuomo Suntola, Theoretical Basis of the Dynamic Universe, 2004. ISBN 9525502104. A highly promising new model of the universe.

I removed this from the article. From what I can find on the web, it is a replacement for GR that is based around the concepts of absolute space and absolute time. As far as I can tell, very few people take it seriously, as it hasn't yet been verified that it explains everything GR does, much less make new, testable predictions (in particular, one back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it getting the orbit of Mercury wrong; another says that it doesn't handle the orbital decay of binary pulsars). --Carnildo 00:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is not good.
I do not like this article at all, and will rewrite it when I get a chance.

1) The central principle of GR is the General Principle of Relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. The local uniformity of phyical constants is a consequence of the General Principle, NOT the Equivalance Principle.

2) The central tenant of GR is that spacetime is curved due to the presense of mass/energy/momentum within it as described by the Einstein Field Equations. This should be mentioned up front, instead of being left until later.

3) GR uses several other principles which are not mentioned: The principle of general covariance (the laws of nature are independent of the coordinate system), the principle of geodesic motion (inertial motion occurs along timelike geodesics), and local Lorentz Invariance (the rules of Special Relativity apply locally in all frames of reference).

4) The Equivalence Principle (EP) is best presented as a rule for determining whether one is in an intertial frame of reference. (The definition presented in this article is correct, but not comprehensive.) Historically, the EP is the jumping-off point for Einstein's derivation of GR. However, it is only a part of GR and is not the best place to start a popular article on the subject in my opinion.

 * please do the rewrite. there are lotsa reviewers here that will scrutinize it, and if it's good (and accurate) your work will not go to waste.  i am solely a spectator about the subject and am looking forward to learning some of the fundamentals.  i dunno if it will help but  and  were somewhat useful to me. anything you can do to add to or elucidate that is welcome.  also, i recommend that you get yourself a wikipedia identity. r b-j 17:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More on rewrite
The requested ID has been obtained, and I have started drafting the changes in my sandbox.

However, I request that you do not hold your breath waiting for the rewrite. I am going to take my time and be very deliberate about it before doing the replacement. I may not like the current article, but I do not want to replace it with something that is almost as bad if not worse. The time that I can devote to this is also limited, but I very much want to produce an article that gives people a sense of what GR is really about.

 * ain't holding my breath. i would suggest that you sign your comments to "Talk:" pages with four tildes " ~ ~ ~ ~ ".  then your wikipedia ID with the date and time are stamped on your comments.  are you cool with the Tex editing?  you might want to check out How_to_edit_a_page or Help:Formula if you haven't yet.  good luck, and you have any encouragement from me. r b-j 17:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I finally did the rewrite. See "Rewrite ready".  (This is actually not the rewrite I started drafting back in March.  That one bogged down and was dropped, but may reappear someday as a beginner's guide to GR.  The current rewrite was started in late June as an attempt to just redo the introduction, and quickly evolved into a comprehensive rewrite.)  --EMS | Talk 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[A speculative response]
In reference to the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the section on 'Foundations' (and other results ?) it says, '...Einstein explained these results in his theory of special relativity.' I'm not convinced he 'explained' the null result, but rather he used it as an assumption in SR. Then he developed a theory of mechanics.

As a little aside, I'm not sure we really know why the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, apart from the fact that otherwise there would arise theoretical contradictions - but to explain it physically is still a mystery (I think). I suppose it's a bit like asking why (physically) does the existence of matter cause spacetime to curve. What's the exact mechanism ? Food for thought ....

 * i think i have a feel for why the speed of E&M propagation should be the same for all inertial reference frames. it really just comes from Maxwell's Eqs. and the knowledge that there is no ether medium that E&M is propagated in.  i mean, how do we tell the difference between a moving vacuum and a stationary vacuum?  if we can't, if there really is no difference between a moving vacuum and a stationary vacuum, that such a concept is really meaningless, then whether the light that you are measuring originated from a flashlight mounted on a rocket moving past you at $$ c/2 \ $$ or from a stationary flashlight, how does that change the fact that a changing E field is causing a changing B field which is causing a changing E field, etc.?  that propagation of an E field and B field disturbance, which has velocity $$ 1/ \sqrt{ \epsilon_0 \mu_0 } \ $$?  how is it different?  whether you are holding the flashlight or moving past it at high velocity, Maxwell's Eqs. say the same thing regarding the nature of E&M in the vacuum.r b-j 05:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the EM argument is a good (convincing) one. Now for the next question: why does matter cause spacetime curvature ? (lol, only joking).

Lightspeed, etc.
The constancy of the speed of light arises from the metric nature of spacetime. The Minknowski metric, whose line item is $$ ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 $$ (in units where $$ c=1 $$) demands it quite nicely.

However, this only leads to other "why"'s. I suggest that the purpose of Wikipedia be respected, which as I understand it is to report on the current state of knowledge, and hopefully to do so in a way that is accessible to the average person. So what is important here is the "what" and not the underlying "why".

EMS

I did say, 'as a little aside...' (lol)

A Convention
May I suggest that we try to use a consistent convention for the value of the speed of light ? After reading many textbooks/research papers etc... which put $$c=1$$ and don't tell us this, I think it might be better to just write c. Putting $$c=1$$ in equations confuses many people when they try to check units. It's especially annoying when they don't tell you this like in the 'vierbein formulation' part (which I have subsequently amended). Putting $$c=1$$ can be quite elegant in some formulae (esp. Maxwell's equations), but I think that for anyone (esp. beginners/newcomers) reading an encyclopedia it is better to have clarity rather than elegance. Also, if it's said that the speed of light is taken to be unity, you have to flap around with the formulae to see where it goes (and is it just $$c$$ or $$c^2$$ or $$c^{5} $$, like in some gravitational radiation formulae ? ).

Please let's try to keep $$c$$ in our formulae.

modifications to article
I've moved a few things around and included some new sections to make the article a little clearer; a lot of work still needs to be done. The 'well-known and popular metrics' have been moved to Einstein field equation. Should the maths of GR be moved to a separate article ?

The statements

"The fundamental idea in relativity is that we cannot talk of the physical quantities of velocity or acceleration without first defining a reference frame, and that a reference frame is defined by choosing particular matter as the basis for its definition. "

are incorrect. An ordinary accelerometer measures acceleration. Of course, you can say the accelerometer is stationary in some reference frame, and so, in a sense, it locally defines a reference frame, but the question of how to extend that reference meaningfully outside the world-line of the accelerometer will lead you into a morass if you are not expert, and into a lot of digressions if you are. One asks why someone is writing a new book on relativity here, when there are so many already. There are good old books by P G Bergmann and Steve Weinberg that can be mined for descriptions, and newer books too, e.g. by Robert M. Wald. As for the second statement it was already critiqued. A reference frame can be identified by imagining a swarm of massless observers, who define the coordinate gridpoints. They need not have mass, i.e. be material; they can be hypothetical. Only requirements are that their worldlines by timelike and form a smooth family - i.e. they do not intersect. There is a maths term for that - probably "manifold" but let someone with more maths settle that. Pdn 06:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's sort out this article.
I think it's about time this article had a serious facelift. The quantum mechanics article puts this one to shame. I've made a few changes: new introduction; removed a paragraph on curvature which used very loose language; replaced that with a more rigorous version. Don't want to remove large chunks, as some of the existing text has useful descriptions (and It'd be treading on other peoples' toes). Need to sift through it carefully. Moved image of spacetime curvature to start of article (grabs attention). Discussion of constancy of speed of light is already in special relativity. Mpatel

 * i want to encourage those of you who understand GR to do exactly this. usually wiki articles help me break through the ice and my understanding of a topic has been increased as a result.  sadly, i cannot say this about this article.  maybe the material is just too hard, or i am missing something.  i understand classical mechanics, a smattering of QM, SR, and a little bit of the Equivalence Principle (the man in an elevator descending at 9.8 m/s^2 is in the same instantaneous situation as other in weightless space or the man in a rocket accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 has the same experience as one standing on the surface of the earth).  is there some way that you guys can start with the EP, and bring us to something like Einstein's Field Equation?   or to an equivalent statement like in the Baez and Bunn paper that is cited? r b-j 15:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know a fair bit about GR; believe me, the (non-mathematical) material is NOT hard - GR is probably the most intuitively pleasing theory in physics to date. The problem is, firstly, I don't want to suddenly remove a huge chunk of other people's work and, secondly, there is a lot to GR (EP, covariance principle, mathematical formulation, two-body problem etc.) - basically, the question is, what's appropriate for an encyclopedia article entitled 'general relativity' ? I think:

(1) the maths should be on a totally separate page.

(2) the unique role of GR as a theory which determines the geometrical background in which objects move should be emphasised.

(3) the nonlinearity of GR should be emphasised, and the consequences of this discussed (again, another major difference between other dynamical equations of physics - e.g. Maxwell's, Schrodinger's).

(4) Some of the intuitive descriptions present in the article are OK, but others are confusing.

I'm chipping away at this article to try and achieve these objectives. Mpatel 16:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorting out article.
OK, I've made a start in seriously modifying this article. I've deleted, swapped and changed loads of stuff. I propose:

(1) In Description of Theory, we talk about how curvature arises through the use of non-inertial reference frames. Then talk about the principle of general relativity and the Equivalence Principle (and maybe covariance- but that might be better in the maths section).

(2) Then discuss some of the juicy effects of GR (light bending, grav. waves, evolution of universe etc...).

(3) Something on nonlinearity (probably in 'relationship with other physics theories' section).

(4) Something on the history of Einstein's discovery of GR.

(5) It might be OK to mention the field equation but not state it on this page (as elegant as it is) - I think it belongs in 'Mathematical formulation of GR', as should the geodesic equation; talking of which, deriving the equations of motion from the field equations might be worth a mention.

I await comments :) Mpatel 08:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * made some changes and then did not notice I was logged out by accident (dunno why or how). Further changes by 69.244.72.110

this morning were mine. Pdn 12:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More modific's
Included a subsection on topology of spacetime; might link in nicely with a brief discussion of black holes, wormholes etc.

Is the section on foundations needed ? I think it's a little lengthy and possibly completely unnecessary - should it be moved somewhere else ? Mpatel 11:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be integrated to some other main subtopic. The overal distribution of the article is a bit weird to me. It seems like a bunch of separated articles one after another, the continuity is a bit strange IMHO. However as of yet, I haven't figured out how to improve this.

I'd like to ask also for a deeper explanation on how GR rises from SR. nihil 01:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I just made a start in improving the article. The more modifications that are made to this article by more people, the better. Mpatel 09:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:General relativity/Archive 1


text:
Astorga

Astorga may refer to:

Places

 * Astorga, Spain, a municipality in the province of León, Castile and León, Spain
 * Astorga, Paraná, a municipality in the state of Paraná, Brazil
 * Roman Catholic Diocese of Astorga, a diocese whose seat is in the city of Astorga, Spain

Sports

 * Astorga FS, was a futsal club based in Astorga, Spain
 * Atlético Astorga FC, a football team based in Astorga, Spain

Other

 * Astorga (surname)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Astorga


text:
Talk:Chitwan National Park

DDT?
I'd love to know how DDT can clear a jungle. AFAIK it will only clear bugs. Bluefox79830 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chitwan National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726170342/http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf to http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310110401/http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Riding_The_Tiger1&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3062 to http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Riding_The_Tiger1&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3062

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chitwan National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Riding_The_Tiger1&template=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3062
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924005001/http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected-areas/national-parks/8-chitwan-national-park.html to http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected-areas/national-parks/8-chitwan-national-park.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025062143/http://www.vulturerescue.org/page20.html to http://www.vulturerescue.org/page20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Dhole in Chitwan National Park.png
 * Two-individuals-of-clouded-leopard-captured-by-camera-trap-from-location-B-camera.png

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bengal Tiger in Chitwan National Park.png
 * Gaur in Chitwan National Park.png
 * Indian Elephant in Chitwan National Park.png
 * Leopard in Chitwan National Park.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sloth Bear in Chitwan National Park.png

title: Talk:Chitwan National Park


text:
User talk:Sukh/Revert War Evidence

I talked to JusticeLaw on his talk page, to encourage him to contribute something, and he attempted a merger of the two versions of the Urdu article instead of reverting. The merged version was very similar to his old preferred version where the two conflicted, but I think he showed good faith. Zora then made her version, which was much closer to the version she prefered, but I think also showed good faith. However, JusticeLaw took it in bad faith as a covert revert. I then made a compromise version (NPOV as far as I can tell except for any new POV's of my own that I added), and both sides seem to have accepted it except for a couple details.

I don't know the history of this, but it seems to be more of a case of assuming bad faith from the other and tit-for-tat blind reverts rather than actual bad faith. Zora believes that JusticeLaw is Harprit, who has been vandalizing her user page and who I just threatened to block. I don't know if JusticeLaw is the same person; the problem I have with him is that he won't participate on the Urdu talk page. And Zora won't talk to him, assuming that he's Harprit. kwami 08:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't actually think it is a case of assuming bad faith. If you look at the history of the edits, you will notice that we have on several occasions tried to discuss issues and come to some sort of compromise - without result.  Unfortunately, now I do assume bad faith automatically whenever this user or his sock puppets edit.  But I am only human... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk

title: User talk:Sukh/Revert War Evidence


text:
Sant'Agostino, Rome

The Basilica of Saint Augustine in Camp Martius (Basilica di Sant'Agostino in Campo Marzio; Basilica Sancti Augustini in Campo Martio), commonly known as Basilica of Saint Augustine is a Roman Catholic minor basilica in Rome. The titular church is dedicated to Saint Augustine of Hippo and serves as the motherhouse of the Augustinian Order.

First conceived in 1286, the current basilica (completed in 1483) is known for its Renaissance architecture style; housing artwork by Roman artisans Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, and Giovanni Francesco Barbieri. It is also the burial site of Saint Monica, the mother of Augustine.

Pope John Paul II raised the shrine to the status of Minor Basilica via decree on 29 October 1999.

History
The former parish of Saint Tryphon in Posterula Church was built at this site in 700 A.D. and was originally dedicated to the martyr Saint Tryphon of Campsada. The Order of Saint Augustine was founded at the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome in 1244. The Augustinian friars soon desired to have their main monastery and church closer to Vatican City. The Roman nobleman Egidio Lufredi donated land near here in Campo Marzio to the Augustinian friars in 1286. On 20 February 1287 Pope Honorius IV granted the St. Tryphon in Posterula Church to the Augustinian friars.

The first building structure was commissioned by Pope Boniface VIII, was built here by the Augustinian friars in 1296-1446 right next to the St. Tryphon in Posterula Church. The construction of the second (current) basilica began in 1479. It was commissioned by Pope Sixtus IV; designed by architect Baccio Pontelli (who also designed the Sistine Chapel); and funded by Cardinal Guillaume d'Estouteville. Its construction was completed in 1483. Giacomo di Pietrasanta (?-1495) built its façade by using travertine salvaged from the ruins of the Colosseum. Its façade reads the following:

"Guillermus de Estoutevilla, Episcopus Ostiensis, Cardinalis Rothomagensis, Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ, Camerarius, Fecit MCCCCLXXXIII English: William of Stateville, the Bishop of Ostia, Cardinal of Rouen of the Holy Roman Church, Camerlengo, built this in the Year 1483."

Its first restoration was completed in 1763 by Luigi Vanvitelli; its second restoration was completed in 1870; and its most recent restoration occurred in 1998–2000.

The title of Sant'Agostino has been held by Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard since 2006. It is the station church of the first Saturday in Lent.

Catholic Mass
The basilica is open to the general public with some restrictions:

 * Monday to Saturday: 7:15 AM—12:00 PM and 4:00—7:30 PM.

 * Roaming tourists are prohibited to visit on Sundays when Catholic Mass is held at 8:00 AM. 10:00 AM. 12:00 PM. and 6:30 PM.

Artwork
The 1606 painting Madonna of Loreto (also known as the Madonna of the Pilgrims) by Caravaggio is located in the first chapel on the left. The heirs of Ermete Cavalletti (?-1602) bought the Pieta Chapel on 4 September 1603 and soon commissioned Caravaggio to paint the Madonna for their family's chapel. It was hung in 1606 at the altar in the Cavalletti Chapel (former Pieta Chapel) in place of a Pieta that was sold to Pope Paul V (formerly Cardinal Camillo Borghese).

The 1512 fresco Prophet Isaiah by Raphael is located on the third pilaster of the left nave. It was part of the funerary monument of Johannes Goritz (1455–1527; also known as Janus Corycius). Isaiah holds a Hebrew scroll stating: "Open the doors, so that the people who believe may enter." (Isaiah 26:2–3) The statue Saint Anne and Virgin with Child (1512) by Andrea Sansovino is located below Raphael's Isaiah.

The 1521 sculpture Madonna del Parto (Our Lady of Childbirth) by Jacopo Sansovino is based, according to a legend, on an ancient statue of Agrippina holding Nero in her arms, is reputed by tradition to work miracles in childbirth. It is located in a niche to the right of the entrance and is surrounded by thank-offerings of flowers and candles.

The 1588 frescoes of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist by Avanzino Nucci are also here.

The 1616 ceiling fresco Assumption of Mary and three paintings by Giovanni Lanfranco are located in the Buongiovanni Chapel (in the left transept).

The 1600s painting Saints Augustine, John the Evangelist and Jerome by Guercino is also here.

The sculpture St. Thomas of Villanova Distributing Alms by Melchiorre Cafà and completed by his mentor Ercole Ferrata is located in the St. Thomas of Villanova Chapel (left end of transept). The etching Charity of St Thomas of Villanova by Cafà himself illustrates this same sculpture.

The 1628 High Altar was designed by Orazio Turriani. It was previously (but erroneously) thought that Gian Lorenzo Bernini had designed it.

Its nave ceiling fresco was completed in 1868 by Pietro Gagliardi; who also made the 5 prophet pillar frescoes (including Ezekiel), 6 Old Testament women & 12 scenes from the life of the Virgin Mary.

Tombs
St. Tryphon of Campsada died in AD 250 and is located under the High Altar.

Saint Monica died in 387. Her tomb was transferred here from the Santa Aurea Church in Ostia Antica, Italy on 11 April 1424. Her sarcophagus was designed by Isaia da Pisa (1410–1464) in 1455, and is now located in the Chapel of Saint Monica (left of the apse).

Norways's Archbishop Olav Trondsson died on 25 November 1474. His tombstone reads: "CVI DEDERAT SACRAM MERITO NORVEGIA SEDEM HIC TEGIT OLAVI FRIGIDVS OSSA LAPIS" (Here a cold stone covers the bones of Olav, to whom Norway rightly gave the holy chair).

Cardinal Guillaume d'Estouteville died on 22 January 1483.

Cardinal Giuseppe Renato Imperiali died on 18 February 1737. Pietro Bracci designed and sculpted his polychrome tomb in 1741.

The inscriptions found in the basilica have been collected and published by Vincenzo Forcella.

List of Cardinal—Protectors
Pope Sixtus V (1585–1590) established the titular church of a cardinal priest in April 1587.

• Gregorio Petrocchini, OESA, (23 March 1590–28 May 1608)

• Fabrizio Veralli, (10 December 1608–17 November 1624)

• Berlinghiero Gessi, (19 July 1627–6 April 1639)

• Ottaviano Raggi, (10 February 1642–31 December 1643)

• Niccolò Albergati-Ludovisi, (24 April 1645–25 June 1646)

• Fabrizio Savelli, (16 December 1647–26 February 1659)

• Antonio Bichi, (1 December 1659–14 November 1667)

• Federico Borromeo (iuniore), (23 February 1671–8 August 1672)

• Francesco Lorenzo Brancati di Lauria, (22 September 1681–1 December 1681)

• Carlo Stefano Anastasio Ciceri, (7 July 1687–24 June 1694)

• Enrico Noris, OESA, (2 January 1696–23 February 1704)

• Carlo Agostino Fabroni, (25 June 1706–19 September 1727)

• Angelo Maria Quirini, OSB Cas., (22 December 1727–8 March 1728)

• Gregorio Selleri, OP, (10 May 1728–31 May 1729)

• Marco Antonio Ansidei, (6 July 1729–14 February 1730)

• Bartolomeó Massei, (8 January 1731–20 November 1746)

• Giorgío Doria, (15 December 1745–3 January 1757; 3 January 1757–31 January 1759)

• Gaetano Fantuzzi Gottifredi, (19 November 1759–6 April 1767)

• Mario Marefoschi Compagnoni, (12 December 1770–23 December 1780)

• Paolo Massei, (11 April 1785–9 June 1785)

• Diego Innico Caracciolo Di Martina, (20 October 1800–26 September 1814; 26 September 1814–24 January 1820)

• Cesare Brancadoro, (29 May 1820–12 September 1837)

• Friedrich Johannes Jacob Celestin von Schwarzenberg, (27 January 1842–27 March 1885)

• Antolín Monescillo y Viso, (10 June 1886–11 August 1897)

• Antonio María Cascajares y Azara, (24 March 1898–27 July 1901)

• Sebastiano Martinelli, OESA, (9 June 1902–4 July 1918)

• Aleksander Kakowski, (18 December 1919–30 December 1938)

• Agustín Parrado y García, (22 February 1946–8 October 1946)

• Fernando Quiroga y Palacios, (29 October 1953–7 December 1971)

• Marcelo González Martín, (5 March 1973–25 August 2004)

• Jean-Pierre Ricard, (24 March 2006– present)

title: Sant'Agostino, Rome


text:
Blast! (musical)

Blast! is a Broadway production created by James Mason for Cook Group Incorporated, the director and organization formerly operating the Star of Indiana Drum and Bugle Corps. It was the 2001 winner of the Tony Award for "Best Special Theatrical Event", and simultaneously received a Tony Award nomination for and won the 2001 Emmy Award for "Best Choreography".

Blast!'s instrumentation is exclusively brass and percussion, a nod to the show's roots in the drum and bugle corps activity. Blast!'s performers use trumpets, flugelhorns, mellophones, baritone horns, tubas, and a full complement of percussion instruments including snare drums, tenor drums, bass drums, xylophones, vibraphones, marimbas, timpani, and other standard percussion equipment. In addition, Blast! adds instruments not normally found in drum corps, such as French horns, concert euphoniums, trombones (including one on a unicycle during "Gee, Officer Krupke!") and bass trombones, didgeridoos and synthesizers. ''Blast! II Shockwave'' was written to include woodwind instruments, such as flute and saxophone. Accompanying the wind and percussion is the Visual Ensemble (or VE), a group of dancers who manipulate a variety of props, similar to a color guard.

Most of Blast!'s duration is instrumentals, throwing people and flags, and a trombonist on a unicycle.

History
The Star of Indiana Drum and Bugle Corps, founded in 1984, competed in the Drum Corps International circuit from 1985 to 1993. It won the 1991 World Championship. After a showing in the 1993 season, the program left the DCI circuit to tour with the Canadian Brass, in a new program dubbed Brass Theater. On December 14, 1999, Blast! premiered at the Hammersmith Apollo in Hammersmith. A PBS special of the London production aired on August 5, 2000. Blast! debuted in the United States on August 23, 2000, at the Wang Center in Boston, Massachusetts. On April 17, 2001, Blast! opened on Broadway at The Broadway Theatre, and later that year commenced its first national tour starting September 7 in St. Louis, Missouri.

Following the success of the original production, ''Blast! II Shockwave'' was developed and toured the United States in 2002–2003. This production added woodwind instruments. Shockwave has not been released on CD or DVD. The creators of Blast! also developed Cyberjam, which premiered in London at the Queen's Theatre in 2003. An additional sequel, MIX:Music in Xtreme, debuted in Japan in 2006 and toured Japan again in 2008. In 2016 Blast! developed and premiered ''Blast! The Music of Disney'' in Japan. ''Blast! The Music of Disney'' returned to Japan for additional tours in 2017 and 2019.

A shortened version of the show, called "The Power of BLAST!", played at the America Gardens Theatre at Epcot in Orlando, Florida for the summer of 2001, before moving to the Hyperion Theater in Disney California Adventure in Anaheim, California from November 22, 2001 until September 2, 2002.

According to the show's website, the original show has not toured since September 2020.

Act One
Overture of color Violet Blue Green Black
 * "Boléro" – (Maurice Ravel)
 * "Villa Borghese" – (Ottorino Respighi) (Performed 1999-2000)
 * "Color Wheel" - (Jefferson Lee)
 * "Split Complementaries" – (Josh Talbott)
 * "Everybody Loves the Blues" – (Maynard Ferguson/Nicholas Lane)
 * "Loss" – (Don Ellis)
 * "Simple Gifts"/"Appalachian Spring" – (Aaron Copland)
 * "Battery Battle" – (Thom Hannum/Jefferson Lee)
 * "Medea" – (Samuel Barber)

Act Two
Color Wheel Yellow Orange Red
 * "Color Wheel Too" – (Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Gee, Officer Krupke!" (from West Side Story) – (Leonard Bernstein/Stephen Sondheim)
 * "Lemontechno" – (Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Tangerinamadidge" – (B. Epperson/Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Land of Make Believe" – (Chuck Mangione)
 * "Marimba Spiritual"/"Earth Beat" – (Minoru Miki/Michael Spiro)
 * "Malagueña" – (Ernesto Lecuona)

Recent editions of Blast! have omitted "Simple Gifts" and "Gee, Officer Krupke!", and moved "Tangerinamadidge" immediately before "Lemontechno".

Act One

 * "Starburst" – (E. Finkel/Gene Krupa)
 * "Prelude, Fugue, and Riffs" – (Leonard Bernstein)
 * "First Circle" – (L. Mays/Pat Metheny)
 * "Blue Rondo à la Turk" – (Dave Brubeck)
 * "Guaguanco" – (Arturo Sandoval)
 * "God Bless the Child" – (Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
 * "Drum, Drum, Drum" – (Louis Prima/B. Dubinski/D. Delucia/Jefferson Lee)
 * "Adagio for Strings" – (Samuel Barber)
 * "Channel One Suite" – (W. Reddie)

Act Two

 * "Excerpts from Carmina Burana" – (Carl Orff)
 * "Good Vibrations" – (Brian Wilson/The Beach Boys)
 * "Star Children" – (Don Ellis)
 * "Uninvited" – (Alanis Morissette)
 * "Turkish Bath" – (Don Ellis)
 * "Bohemian Rhapsody" – (Freddie Mercury)
 * "Lullaby for Nancy Carol" – (Chuck Mangione)
 * "Swing, Swing, Swing" – (John Williams)

MIX: Music in Xtreme
Act One

 * "Ourverture" - (V. Corradi)
 * "Shapes" - (Jefferson Lee)
 * "Blue Rondo à la Turk" - (David Brubeck)
 * "The Lady from 29 Palms" - (Allie Wrubel/Frank Sinatra)
 * "Night on Bald Mountain" - (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Modest Mussorgsky)
 * "Tribal Towers" - (Jefferson Lee)
 * "Malaga" - (B. Holman)

Act Two

 * "o2" - (Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Didgeritoo" - (James Mason, Jefferson Lee, Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Star Children" - (Don Ellis)
 * "Uninvited" - (Alanis Morissette)
 * "Turkish Re-Mix" - (Jonathan Vanderkolff, Jefferson Lee)
 * "Turkish Bath" - (Don Ellis)
 * "Open Wide" - (Don Ellis)
 * "Lullaby for Nancy Carol" - (Chuck Mangione)
 * "Encore" - (Jefferson Lee)

The Power of BLAST!
Epcot version
 * "Boléro" – (Maurice Ravel)
 * "Color Wheel" - (Jefferson Lee)
 * "Battery Battle" – (T. Hannum/Jefferson Lee)
 * "Land of Make Believe" – (Chuck Mangione)
 * "Malagueña" – (Ernesto Lecuona)

Disney California Adventure version
 * "Boléro" – (Maurice Ravel)
 * "Battery Battle" – (T. Hannum/Jefferson Lee)
 * "Lemontechno" – (Jonathan Vanderkolff)
 * "Land of Make Believe" – (Chuck Mangione)
 * "Malagueña" – (Ernesto Lecuona)

BLAST! The Music of Disney
Act I

 * "When You Wish Upon a Star" - (Ned Washington/Leigh Harline)
 * "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" - (Paul Dukas)
 * "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" - (Mack David, Al Hoffman & Jerry Livingston)
 * "I Wan'na Be Like You" - (Richard M. Sherman/Robert B.Sherman)
 * "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" - (Mack David, Al Hoffman & Jerry Livingston)
 * "Reflection" - (David Zippel/Matthew Wilder)
 * "Rhapsody in Blue" - (George Gershwin)
 * "Storm" (Medley of music from Moana, Bambi, Aladdin, and Tarzan)
 * "Steps in Time" - (Richard M. Sherman/Robert B.Sherman)

Act II

 * "Circle of Life" - (Tim Rice/Elton John)
 * "Be Our Guest" - (Howard Ashman/Alan Menken)
 * "Train Tech" (Original musical track featuring the Main Street Electrical Parade theme)
 * "Part of Your World / Under the Sea" - (Howard Ashman/Alan Menken)
 * "He's a Pirate" - (Klaus Badelt/Geoffrey Zanelli/Hans Zimmer)
 * "The Mob Song" - (Howard Ashman/Alan Menken)
 * "Seize the Day" - (Jack Feldman/Alan Menken)
 * "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" - (Scott Wittman/Marc Shaiman)
 * ENCORE: "Friend Like Me" - (Howard Ashman/Alan Menken)

Musical numbers listed in the souvenir program for early productions of ''Blast! The Music of Disney'' included "Night on Bald Mountain", "Let It Go", and "How Far I'll Go".

title: Blast! (musical)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL Draft Steals

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of NFL Draft Steals
A more-or-less empty list with inherently POV criteria. (Related to this is the ongoing AFD of List of NHL Draft Steals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article needs two things namely criteria for determining who is a steal and verifiable sources for the claims. Capitalistroadster 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone beat me to the punch, I was going to post this to AfD. Even if the criteria that Capitalistroadster talked about is reached, the barebones content in there doesn't merit an article of its own. Karmafist 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is POV. Then you would have to list current popular NFL stars or Hall of Famers that were drafted past the 1st round which is a lot. Also, what is consider a steal? Is Randy Moss consider a steal because he dropped around the late 1st round. Where does it stop? --J. Nguyen 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This list constitutes sports trivia, and sports trivia list, especially one that relies on arbitrary decisions of which fan's opinion is right, is not an encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --HappyCamper 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if an agreement to what criteria is needed for a player to be added to the list, then I see no reason why this article can't be kept. If this article is considered POV, then why isn't List of NFL Draft Busts considered POV? Why are only the "Steals" up for deletion and no the "Busts"? I say keep all if an agreement can be reached for which players meet the criteria.Masterhatch 17:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I am the creator of this article (and the List of NHL Draft Steals, another disputed article, as well), and I understand that this may be POV to some people (due to the many definitions of a bust or a steal that people have). I am sorry that I haven't updated the NFL Draft Busts and Steals pages as of late... I really don't have the time to pour into making this list as I did with the NHL pages (I was in summer vacation then and add a part-time job (20-30 hours/week) to that as well). The lack of time for me to develop this page has allowed it to rot into this state. I will try to get some guidelines for an NFL Draft Steal and an NFL Draft Bust up soon. I know that this can be fixed... It just needs manhours and research. As an example, look at the Films considered the worst ever. It was often debated whether it was legittimate or it was strictly POV, but the contributors to the list started to crack down on what could come in to the list. If I (and others) can crack down on what comes into these lists, I feel that this list can thrive in the Wikiverse. Hossmann 15:30, 15 October 2005
 * Comment: According to this list, Kurt Warner was a "steal" in the NFL Draft when he wasn't even drafted and most importantly not a considered prospect to be drafted. That is the reason is why I didn't take this "list" seriously. --J. Nguyen 23:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I can understand why you cannot respect this list. If you see my List of NHL Draft Steals, there is a separate section called "Undrafted Steals". My plan, if this list stays on wikipedia, is that I will take Kurt Warner (or any other undrafted steal in the NFL) and shove them onto this list. Hossmann 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is Incomplete list 3 names only --JAranda | watz sup 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hossman. Lists have no need to be complete at all times. Kappa 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, but is this list worth completing? I believe the answer is "no".  The Literate Engineer 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherent POV. Also addresses the reader, currently no content. Rhobite 02:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I may be the biggest NFL fan alive (both literally and metaphorically), but this list is inherently subjective without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Steroid hormone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcfall2016. Peer reviewers: Trb9, Rpc91.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi,

I think we need more reference for this page. --LowLifer 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This page claims that progestagens are a group of steroid hormones, while the page progestagen defines progestagen as artificial compounds acting like progesterone. / Habj 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am going to add to this page. I will add sections on transport of steroid hormones through the blood and across cell membranes, a section on mechanisms of action (both non-genomic and genomic), and I will add to the effects section. Mcfall2016 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Arabic
Steroid hormones help control metabolism, inflammation, immune functions, salt and water balance, development of sexual characteristics, and the ability to withstand injury and illness. The term steroid describes both hormones produced by the body and artificially produced medications that duplicate the action for the naturally occurring steroids. 197.252.201.103 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steroid hormone


text:
User talk:Philmurray

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf melmac 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC).

title: User talk:Philmurray


text:
San Luigi dei Francesi

The Church of St. Louis of the French (San Luigi dei Francesi, Saint Louis des Français, S. Ludovici Francorum de Urbe) is a Catholic church near Piazza Navona in Rome. The church is dedicated to the patron saints of France: Virgin Mary, Dionysius the Areopagite and King Louis IX of France.

The church was designed by Giacomo della Porta and built by Domenico Fontana between 1518 and 1589, and completed through the personal intervention of Catherine de' Medici, who donated to it some property in the area. It is the national church in Rome of France. It is also a titular church. The current Cardinal-Priest of the title is André Vingt-Trois, a former Archbishop of Paris.

History
When the Saracens burned the Abbey of Farfa in 898, a group of refugees settled in Rome. Some monks remained in Rome even after their abbot Ratfredus (934–936) rebuilt the abbey. By the end of the tenth century, the Abbey of Farfa owned in Rome churches, houses, windmills and vineyards. A bull of Holy Roman Emperor Otto III in 998 confirms the property of three churches: Santa Maria, San Benedetto and the oratorio of San Salvatore. When they ceded their property to the Medici family in 1480, the church of Santa Maria became the church of Saint Louis of the French. Cardinal Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici commissioned Jean de Chenevières to build a church for the French community in 1518. Chenevières' design was for an octagonal, centrally planned edifice. Building was halted when Rome was sacked in 1527, and the church was finally completed in 1589 by Domenico Fontana and Giacomo della Porta, who designed the façade, according to an entirely different design. The church was consecrated by the Cardinal François de Joyeuse, Protector of France before the Holy See, on 8 October 1589. The interior was restored by Antoine Dérizet between 1749 and 1756.

The foundation Pieux Etablissements de la France à Rome et à Lorette is responsible for the five French churches in Rome and apartment buildings in Rome and in Loreto. The foundation is governed by an "administrative deputy" named by the French Ambassador to the Holy See.

Exterior
Giacomo della Porta made the façade as a piece of decorative work entirely independent of the body of the structure, a method much copied later. The French character is evident from the façade itself, which has several statues recalling national history: these include Charlemagne, St. Louis, St. Clothilde and St. Jeanne of Valois. The interior also has frescoes by Charles-Joseph Natoire recounting stories of Saint Louis IX, Saint Denis and Clovis.

Contarelli (St. Matthew) Chapel
Contarelli Chapel contains a cycle of paintings by the Baroque master Caravaggio in 1599–1600 about the life of St. Matthew. This includes the three world-renowned canvases of The Calling of St Matthew (on the left wall), The Inspiration of Saint Matthew (above the altar), and The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew (on the right wall).

Polet Chapel
The Polet Chapel contains frescoes by Domenichino portraying the Histories of Saint Cecilia.

Other works
Other works in the church include pieces by Cavalier D'Arpino, Francesco Bassano il Giovane, Muziano, Giovanni Baglione, Siciolante da Sermoneta, Jacopino del Conte, Tibaldi and Antoine Derizet.

Burials
The church was chosen as the burial place for a number of higher prelates and members of the French community of Rome: these include the classic liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat, Cardinal François-Joachim de Pierre de Bernis, ambassador in Rome for Louis XV and Louis XVI, and Henri Cleutin, the French Lieutenant in 16th-century Scotland. There is also the tomb of Pauline de Beaumont, who died of consumption in Rome in 1805, erected by her lover Chateaubriand. The sculptor Pierre Le Gros the Younger is buried here in an unmarked grave. The painter Antoniazzo Romano is buried here as well.

The inscriptions found in San Luigi dei Francesi, a valuable source illustrating the history of the church, have been collected and published by Vincenzo Forcella.

Ospizio San Luigi dei Francesi
Adjacent to the church is the late-Baroque Ospizio San Luigi dei Francesi. It was built in 1709–1716 as a place to stay for the French religious community and pilgrims without resources. Its porch has a bust of Christ whose face is traditionally identified as Cesare Borgia's. The interior houses a gallery with portraits of the French kings and a notable Music Hall.

Cardinal-Priests of S. Luigi dei Francesi
The Church of S. Louis was designated as a cardinalatial titulus on 7 June 1967, by Pope Paul VI. Its titulars have to date all been archbishops of Paris:
 * Pierre Veuillot (29 June 1967 – 14 February 1968)
 * François Marty (30 April 1969 – 16 February 1994)
 * Jean-Marie Lustiger (26 November 1994 – 5 August 2007)
 * André Armand Vingt-Trois (24 November 2007 – Present)

title: San Luigi dei Francesi


text:
Talk:General relativity/Archive 2

GR SR connection
The best way so far as I know to grasp the connection is to understand that a GR spacetime consists of a patching-together of a continuum of inifintesimal local Lorentzian (SR) pieces. Think of a soccer ball with those little pentagons. Make them smaller and smaller, and as they are so small that they approach flatness, extend each patch as a small section of an infinite plane. When you apply the Equivalence Principle all you are doing is saying that, in principle, if you could live in that (tangent) plane, you would be in Minkowski (SR) spacetime and everything would be as usual in SR. (Be careful on notation - "tangent space" is a mathematical construct that includes, as I understand it, lots of other vectors besided displacements and velocities - I think it has E&M vectors in it, too.) Of course, all these vectors can be imagined to lie in that extended plane I just described, too.

How is this conceptualization applied to some poor chap standing in Dallas, TX and feeling the force of gravity pulling him downwards? Well, this discussion is all in four dimensions, and those little soccer ball patches all exist in a sequence of spacetime sections falling, in free fall, past this person. The patches have an inclination of their time axes to his that can be zero, if we make them by dropping them just like a lead sinker that he drops from rest, because if at rest when they meet him, the time axes are (instantaneously) aligned. If you want to extend these little patches above his head, I think you have to use ones with the time axes slanted, as if he threw up a sinker (or a clock) and then it passed by him again on the way down. But the point is that he is accelerated in regards to any of these coordinate patches that slip past him, and that is why he feels gravity. If you could extend the little patches to mate smoothly over a region larger than first order in the differentials, you would have found a local Minkowski space - hard to do in GR. It would exist inside a massive spherical shell, but not in very many other places I can think of, if matter is present. OK, nested shells, hollow at the center, that works. The patches can be just bent into a curved surface, or they can be more like vanes on a windmill, not mating smoothly. That is what happens in rotating systems; the patches that represent, for example, small regions on the Earth's surface are set up like vanes on a centrifugal fan. see: "Cylindrical Cardboard Model for a Rotating System in Special Relativity," Amer. J. Phys., 47, pp. 218‑223. That's for special relativity, not GR, but it carries over to GR for rotating systems. Pdn 16:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Complain!
This article is much too unwieldy and unorganized. I think this (and perhaps some related articles) need to be rewritten from scratch as as set of more focused articles, following the Wikiprinciple of passing from the general to the specific.

Suggestion: I see some stuff on "the meaning of curvature". That's important, but its really about geometry, not gtr per se, and should be incorporated into pages on Riemannian geometry (if it's not already there).

Another suggestion: there's much too much historical material here. Much of this could be moved to a separate article on the historical development of gtr.

Hillman 29 May 2005

 * My advice is to go for it. I looked into doing this myself, thinking that another project of mine was winding down, but it has not and I can't do much for now.

 * I agree with your complaint about the history section even though I wrote it. What little was there before was pathetic and misleading.  So I put that section together, knowing that it almost is a first draft of the seperate article.  My own feeling is that the math and the talk about the final development of the EFE should be off-loaded ASAP.  I just want it to be done in the context of a fuller article on that issue.

 * Wikipedia is something that is going to grow in a step-like fashion as more and more people who care about these subjects and have the requisite expertise step up to the plate and add to it. Choose your battles here, realizing that you will need to build a foundation on which your GR article improvements are to rest.  I myself am still grappling with the fact that the supporting articles that an improved GR article needs to reference (or which this one does) are often in need of work themselves.  Often it is better to make the incremental imporvements than to do the big project, although that day must come.

 * --EMS | Talk 04:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. If you are who I now think you are (and I don't know of many entities named Hillman who can't figure out if they are human or not), then I very much look forward to your contributions.  My advice is to start with the tensor and mathematics of general relativity pages.  If you don't want to work on the math-of-GR article at first then at least look at my comments on it.  I may work on that article soon and the comments include my intended outline.

 * --EMS | Talk 04:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

History of GR
Easier to move the history chunk to the article The development of general relativity (which I've done) and make modifications to that article (and the GR article) as appropriate. Mpatel 15:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You didn't do the second half of that job, namely cutting the fat out of the GR article's history section. I have now done that.  The new article also could use some elaboration and expansion, but that job I will leave mostly to others. --EMS | Talk 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion on cutting down on 'EP'
The Equivalence Principle (EP) section appears to be larger than necessary, as there is a separate page for the EP. I suggest that any valuable bits in the EP section of the GR article be moved to the equivalence principle page (if they're not already there) and the current section be reduced accordingly. I think that only the gist of the EP needs to be mentioned in the GR article. Responses appreciated. Mpatel 15:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No objection here. All that I ask is that the 1907 Einstein quote be retained.  Beyond that I agree that it can be a lot shorter.  The first sentence of the last paragraph should also apprear in the final product, but the rest of that last paragraph needs to be ditched.

 * Do go ahead and look at the equivalence principle page, but myself and Joke137 have put a lot of work into it, and I doubt that you will find any need to transfer data from this page to that one. Instead it may be more of an issue of making the GR section on the EP small and consistent with the EP page.

 * --EMS | Talk 19:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Resolved
Hi, EMS and MP, thanks for the kind words. I am very glad to see you are both doing your bit (or more) to upgrade the gr articles here! I already have compiled a long list of articles I want to (re)-write here on gr topics. While, I haven't yet found the energy/time/courage to start in on the gr article itself, I -did- rewrite the article on Brans/Dicke theory! :-/

Looks like we all agree that ideally the main gr article should feature the briefest possible summaries of various broad topics, including At the end of each brief summary, a link could point interested readers to a longer article devoted to this particular aspect, which can be written from scratch, perhaps using the best of what is already present in various Wikipedia articles. Right now, the only one of these topics which appeals to me is the meaning of the EFE.
 * the dramatic players (gravitation, matter) and the stage (spacetime) as a player,
 * Einstein's motivation, desiderata, and heroic search for GR,
 * role of diffeomorphism covariance,
 * equivalence principle,
 * Newtonian limit,
 * geometric/physical meaning of the EFE, nonlinearity,
 * global versus local distinction,
 * conformal/causal structure, horizons,
 * role of boundary conditions, smoothness,
 * role of approximations (linearization/weak-field, far-field, slow motion),
 * gravitational radiation,
 * reformulations of GTR (ADM, Regge),
 * relationship to other gravitation theories, PPN parameters,
 * tests of GTR (past, present, future).

As things stand, I think that even the list of references which I entered is fairly unwieldy. Is there any wikiprecedent for putting a list of printed refrences in a separate page? Maybe only the two on-line tutorial articles should be in the gr article itself--- maybe a very brief reference section could include these two and then link to a longer page containing all the other references?

FWIW, some much easier projects I'd like to carry out include: In the near future, I'd like to rewrite the weak-field theory article, add an article on multipole moments, add more pp-wave related articles, add an article on the Neugebauer/Meinel disk solution, and write articles on the Weyl and Ernst families of vacuum solutions. We'll see.
 * add suitable references to all the longer articles, and put any existing references into a uniform (wikitemplated) format,
 * improve various of the less unwieldy articles,
 * add suitable figures (e.g. to the Regge calculus and Penrose diagram articles).

--Chris Hillman

 * Chris -

 * First of all, thanks for the outline. This is something that people can and may well work towards.  I myself a few months ago mentioned a set of principles that the article of the time did not address.  Now they are addressed, mostly due to the work of others.  If you feel comfortable with addressing the physical meaning of the EFE, then go ahead and write it up.  Just be aware that the EFE has its own article, and that much the same (but in more detail) should also be there.

 * As for moving the full list of references to another page: I know of no precedent, but an article on the available printed and web resources on GR is not inappropriate.  Normally there is not such a wealth of resources available on a topic such that a special page is needed.  I don't know that I would remove all references from the GR page itself.  Instead I would keep 4-6 (including the web tutorials) and then have a prominent link ("For addition references ... " perhaps) to the full bibliography/references page.

 * Beyond that I repeat my prior advice: Choose your battles.  There is so much that can and needs to be done, including fixing up many of the existing articles.  As you already see, Wikipedia is living growing resource that over time is constantly improving due to the efforts of its contributors.  That does not mean that you are not needed.  In fact part of what is happenning is that as Wikipedia improves so does the quality of the contributors.  So hopefully in a few more years the GR part of Wikipedia will be high quality text guarded and maintained by some of the better people in the field.  For now we are a band of mostly dedicated amateurs with a few professionals in the mix, but your presense is a sign that the mix is changing.

 * --EMS | Talk 15:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geometric physical theory
What is this supposed to mean? Why is it important to non-logged-in editor 81.218.238.113 to have this particular language? This editor keeps reverting to this with no explanation. WCFrancis 17:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This user is a vandal. They're modifying this and a handful of other pages to reflect their own unorthodox views of relativity and cosmology. I added the user to Vandalism in progress a day or two ago, so hopefully their crusade will be curtailed in the not too distant future. --Christopher Thomas 20:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The spacetime myth
Ok i see this is some kind of religion. Well i respect your religion but don't be surprised when someone will finally contradict your bizzare space-time theory. Space-time is a joke. It tells us nothing about motion, nor does it tell us anything about weight and gravitation. -- 81.218.238.113 11:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * That comment is so full of ignorance, it doesn't even deserve a response --- Mpatel 11:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but you are the ignorant. Gravity has nothing to do with spacetime curvature. Spacetime is a geometric construct with no counterpart in nature (see physical space). -- 81.218.238.113 13:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, you've asked for it now.

 * 'spacetime is a geometric construct with no counterpart in nature' - you sure about that? - if it were true, then you can use the same argument to conclude that space doesn't exist (same for time) - because we use geometric constructs to model space (3-D euclidean, usually) and time (1-D euclidean) individually. The constructs are mathematical and we can visualise them.

 * 'spacetime tells us nothing about motion' - that's not true, as by drawing a spacetime diagram (STD) you can conclude a lot about motion. A straight worldline in a STD can represent, for example, a particle travelling at a constant speed (relative to a given reference frame) - if you've done any physics or maths at high school level, you'll realise that what you said is incorrect, as you draw a STD every time you draw simple space-time graphs of an accelerating car (it's a 2-D STD) - curved lines represent acceleration, straight lines mean zero acceleration (sound familiar ????).

 * I think you're perhaps confused about the idea of spacetime curvature. In a given physical situation, the spacetime is given. Only if there is any change in the dynamical state of that system does spacetime change in any way. Modelling the motion of a planet around the Sun (and treating the planet as a point particle), for example, doesn't mean that spacetime changes (as spacetime is fixed) - but if you were to draw a STD for that planet, then the worldline would look like a spiral (see the diagram in spacetime). I repeat, the spacetime is fixed and nothing moves in spacetime (in a STD nothing moves - that's obvious, but you can still talk about a car moving along a road during a certain time interval and represent that on a STD). In GR, the geometry of spacetime is not flat, but it is curved (if you were to take timelike slices, then you would not have 3D euclidean hypersurfaces). If my interpretation is correct, the geometry of spacetime only changes when the physical system in question changes it's dynamical state (for example, if a star were to suddenly supernova, then clearly the local geometry would change - any planets orbiting the star would get flung out or destroyed). In oversimplified language, when we say that spacetime is curved, we mean: space is curved, therefore this thing that we call spacetime (= space + time) must also be curved.

 * The idea of gravity as a geometric phenomena is better (meaning experimentally and aesthetically) than any other idea at present - just take a look at the results of experimental tests of GR.

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings you have about gravity being curved spacetime and motion in spacetime. --- Mpatel 15:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * RE: The problem with differential geometry is that it deals with abstract metric spaces. Structures are easier to visualize but what does it tell us about physical processes (such as nuclear fusion) or the energy levels of the electron? Also if particles are absolute, why the hell do they need a reference frame to be relative to?

When large group of hydrogen molecules in space attract each other to produce stars, it seems more of a quantum interaction than molecules warping spacetime. Molecules in intergalactic space attracting other molecules by exchanging graviton particles just seems right.

My conclusion is that physics cannot be done using abstract geometry. We can only use elements, particles and the interaction processes between them.

I wish I could be more enlightening, but it seems that current knowledge levels are too low to produce anything more than just postulates. --81.218.238.113 15:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia doesn't do original research, so your conclusions are out of scope here. You can publish or promote them at other places, your own WWW page or the USENET, I suggest. Wikipedia has to report the current scientific consensus, including relevant minority viewpoints, if verfieable sources can be produced. --Pjacobi 20:07, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but one whose knowledge level is low is yours.  GR, though a combination of spacetime curvature and the principle of geodesic motion does explain the observed motion of objects.

 * Think that you cannot see GR in action? Then drop something.  Nothing is pushing on it, yet it accelerates downward, the same as it would from your point of view if you in a giant centrifuge being pushed against the walls.

 * GR easily explains the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Does your graviton exchange model do that?  If so, then what is the math be which you prove it?

 * In addition, GR
 * predicts the observed non-Newtonian perihelion precession Mercury,
 * predicts the observed bending of light passing close to the Sun being twice that of the Newtonian prediction.
 * predicts the time delay of signals going deeper into a gravitaional field,
 * predicts the time dilation effects that the GPS needed to account for in order to function properly,
 * and corresponds to Newtonian physics in the weak field limit.
 * Does your model do all that, and if so the what is the math?

 * In your defense, I will note the GR is a highly non-intuitive theory which many people find hard to grasp. The spacetime of GR is a curved, four-dimensional manifold in which one of the dimensions involved in the curvature is time.  When Einstein started to work on the thery Max Plank told him "you will never succeed, and if you do noone will believe you".  He was wrong on both counts, but to this day there are a lot of people who would rather not believe him than either deal with the math or admit their own failings.

 * --EMS | Talk 02:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max Planck was ineed wrong but not because he rejected relativity. Quantum mechanics fails to describe the gravitational interaction. Both quantum mechanics and relativity are wrong in ignoring very weak interactions. -- 81.218.230.86 01:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have looked at your link, and all that I can do is hold my nose at what I read. Perhaps the worst offense is that statment that "GR is not fully compatible with Newtonian theory".  Indeed it is not, and is not intended to be (except in the weak field limit).  However, Einstein's GR works when Newton's theory does not!

 * Be advised that I have walked in your shoes. So I will warn you now:
 * You do not have a theory at this point. Instead all that you have is a speculation.  It is an unfortunate attribute of -uh- "independent researchers" that they often do not realize this at first.
 * This is not the place to discuss your non-thoery.

 * I am now done with this thread. I do wish you luck, but you will not find it here.  --EMS | Talk 03:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. I just felt that you might like to know that I liked your last edit, and agree with it's contents.  However, it is totally lacking in NPOV.  Therefore, I refuse to place anything like that in the GR page, and will revert any such content that I am the first to find there.  A page dedicated to objections to the black hole, dark matter, and dark energy may actually be quite useful.  There actually is a lot of objection to those in the field.  However, before you get started do realize that it is the objections and misgivings of prominent scientists such as Einstein and Hawking that need to be documented.  Your feelings have no place here, nor on this issue do mine (which along with the level of research required are the reasons that I will not do that article).

 * Do be advised that inappropriate articles are deleted here, sometimes rapidly. So don't try anything.  Your work can be tracked, and will be dealt with.  I may sympathize with your view, but I am not your friend. --EMS | Talk 05:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not a friend of yours either and i don't need/want any permission from you. You don't own wikipedia and neither do i. As long as we'll construct a QFT version of gravitational interactions, general relativity is disqualified as a physical model of nature and gravitation becomes just like the other forces.

Peace -- 81.218.230.86 20:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * uh, oh. Some misunderstanding about scientific theories and models again. Even Newtonion gravitation is still a valid model and theory of gravition, as it proofs useful for description and calculation of a wide range of phenomena. Of course by now we know, where its usefullness breaks down and GR delivers better predictions. There is a widespread belief, that GR will break down at "Planck scale", but neither are details clear nor will this change anything on its range of usefull applications. --Pjacobi

Hallo Pjacobi,

AFAIK general relativity breaks down when space-time becomes infinitely curved. Unfornately we will never reach Planck scale but we should be able to construct a QFT version of gravitational interactions. -- 81.218.230.86 22:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Pjacobi & others - All that answering this person is doing is giving him a soapbox to stand on.

 * He has admited that he cares not for GR, and has an almost religous belief that a QFT will solve all of the ills of GR.

 * And this comes from the same idiot who thinks that gravity is space-time curvature. You fascists cannot let go of old ideas. Btw i reverted your edits about the time and physical space article. -- 81.218.230.86 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Edit of time re-reverted, but your link to dimension was kept. (That at least was a good idea/edit.) --EMS | Talk 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Never mind that Wikipedia is not the place for original research or personal speculative opinions. I suggest that we leave him be, except to revert his edits to articles as needed and if deserved. --EMS | Talk 02:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:General relativity/Archive 2


text:
British Rail Class 70 (electric)

The British Rail Class 70 was a class of three third rail Co-Co electric locomotives. The initial two were built by the Southern Railway (SR) at Ashford Works in 1940–41 and 1945 and were numbered CC1 and CC2 - the Southern Railway latterly preferring French practice for locomotive numbers which also gave an indication of the wheel arrangement. Electrical equipment was designed by Alfred Raworth and the body and bogies by Oliver Bulleid. CC2 was modified slightly from the original design by C. M. Cock who had succeeded Raworth as electrical engineer. The third was built by British Railways in 1948 and numbered 20003.

Southern Railway nos. CC1 and CC2
Externally, it was clear that the cab design was greatly influenced by the SR's experience with the 2HAL electric multiple unit (EMU) design. It has even been suggested that this was because the jigs for the welded cabs already existed and thus made for speedy and cheap construction. At the outbreak of war in 1939, most construction projects were put on hold in favour of the war effort. Construction of CC1 and CC2 was exempted from this, because of promised savings in labour and fuel over steam locomotives. Construction was not smooth, however, and was brought to a halt several times, due to shortage of resources. After nationalisation in 1948, British Railways renumbered them 20001 and 20002 respectively.

British Railways no. 20003
The third member of the class, 20003 from new, was built at Eastleigh. S. B. Warder (later to become chief electrical engineer of the British Transport Commission and architect of the UK 25 kV AC overhead system still in use today) was, by then, Southern Railway's electrical engineer and he modified the design somewhat. Although counted as the same class, 20003 was markedly different externally from its two earlier sisters, being 2 inches (5 cm) longer with flat 4SUB-like cab ends, arguably a simpler (and therefore cheaper) design than the earlier two. Equipment changes, though, added 5 tons to the earlier 100-ton design.

Head codes
CC1 and CC2 locomotives were equipped with stencil head codes, but as it quickly became apparent that suitable head codes for freight workings did not exist (nor did the combination of two numbers only at that time, provide the scope) CC1 and CC2 were also fitted with six steam locomotive style discs at each end with 20003 being fitted from new so that standard codes could be displayed. With standardisation came a whole set of new two-character codes with letters as well, and all three locomotives were fitted with roller-blind two-character head codes and the discs removed.

Technical details
The class soon proved their worth. The six traction motors providing 1470 hp allowed them to handle 1000 LT freight and 750 LT passenger trains with ease.

Booster control
Being much shorter than the predominant multiple units, electric locomotives can suffer from a problem known as "gapping" - becoming marooned between supplies at breaks in the electrical supply and snatching at the couplings whilst moving as they come on and off the power. The latter places undue stress on couplings and has been known to cause separations of a train. Raworth overcame this by having a motor–generator set (booster) with a large flywheel on the shaft between the two. The traction current, instead of feeding the traction motors directly through the control assembly, powered a large motor which turned a shaft with the flywheel and fed into the generator. The output of the generator could be combined with the third rail power to reduce or boost the voltage applied to the traction motors. With the generator output polarity reversed, the control assembly could deliver around 1200 V DC by combining the generator output with the 650 V from the third rail to give positive 650 V and negative 500-600 V - leading to the nickname "boosters". The flywheel ensured the generator continued to turn whilst no current was available from the third rail, thus ensuring a continuous supply to the traction motors.

Even while stationary, Class 70 locomotives produced a noticeable droning noise due to the booster-set turning inside the body. Two booster sets were fitted in each locomotive, one for each bogie. It was not sufficient to allow the locomotives to work "off the grid" as the load on the generator whilst under power meant it would quickly consume the stored kinetic energy. They needed attentive driving, to ensure they were not brought to a halt on a gap and the booster set allowed to run down.

There were losses incurred in the conversion of electrical energy to kinetic and back again, but Raworth mitigated this in the control mechanism. Instead of having large, heavily built resistances in the power lines for the motors, the 26 taps on the controller changed resistances in the field coils of the generator. These correspondingly made the construction much lighter and more easily maintained. Instead of "burning-up" unrequired power, the controller simply altered how much power was generated.

Other features
A cross-arm pantograph was fitted to each of the three locomotives to allow them to work from overhead lines erected in some yards, (notably Hither Green marshalling yard, South East London) where it was deemed too dangerous to have third rail, with staff constantly at track level, particularly in war-time blackout. The pantograph was recessed into a cut-out on the roof when not in use, to keep within the loading gauge.

The locomotives were fitted with electrically powered train heating boilers to generate steam for train heating allowing them to pull passenger trains if necessary.

Successor and withdrawal
The class formed a "proof-of-concept" for booster-based electric locomotives. Although thought of as prototypes for the later Class 71, which used the same concept, the latter differed greatly in its design and construction, being based on Swiss practice.

All three were withdrawn between October 1968 and January 1969 without receiving TOPS numbers, although 20001 received BR "Rail Blue" for its final years. None were preserved.

Parts of the electrical equipment including booster generators and flywheels were salvaged and used by GEC as load simulators in its test facilities at Preston, where locomotive traction equipment was dynamically tested. Among others, traction systems for the second series of trains for the Docklands Light Railway were tested on the rig.

title: British Rail Class 70 (electric)


text:
Talk:Bhāskara I

Untitled
Apologies for my (self-corrected) mistake. I should have read the article more closely. I changed the comma to a decimal point (which was one of the first things that threw me) and I'll leave it to someone else to judge whether this becomes a good article. Cedars 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
Overall, the article is good, but it is seriously lacking in the Biography section. Also, the article loses encyclopedic tone in places, where it begins using rhetorical questions. An image wouldn't hurt either. If any those objections are addressed, it would easily be a GA. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

the allegorical representation of number 2 has been described as "wings" probably from the sanskrit word PAKSHA. this word in one sense means wings. But this has another meaning also. in fact that should be regarded as the correct one. the word "paksha" also means lunar fortnight. Since every month usually consists of 2 lunar fortnights, the bright and the dark, so one cannot think of a single lunar fortnight. they always come as twins symbolising the number 2 as the only meaning that can be derived out of the word. Subhankar Dasgupta, Taldanga, Chinsurah, Dist Hooggly, West Bengal, India, pincode 712105 mobile no 09830437560, ph- 033-26833801 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.209.85 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar Year
The solar year was calculated as 365.25875684 days by Bhaskaracharya in the 5th century, hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart.

Source: Annual Research Journal - 2000, by the Institute for Rewriting Indian (and World) History

A similar article to the one above was originally sent into the Indian Express newspaper, June 22, 1999, by Maxwell Pareira. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.11.3 (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Further contributions
Corrected a typo (x,y) = (6,7) to (x,y) = (6,17) Drajput (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ranjitr303 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) can anyone tell me how did he find the next values for pell's equation using one set of values. and also tell me the method for the general form Nx^2 + k = y^2 ? I have found that for Nx^2 + k = y^2 if 'a' & 'b' are corresponding values for x and y respectively then '(2*a*b)/√k' and '(2(b^2) - k)/√k' are also the solutions. can anyone tell whether it is correct and if there is any article related to it?

 * I think the articles you want are Chakravala method and Bhaskara's lemma. AFAIK this was the work of the later Brahmagupta and Bhaskara II, not Bhaskara I. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bhāskara I