text:
Talk:Distress signal

Untitled
Quite a few changes... I've added a definition of "distress" to differentiate it from other urgent calls. I've removed the reference to anything in groups of three as it simply isn't true (eg three blasts on a horn or whistle actually means "my engines are going astern" according to the International Code of Signals). I've also taken out some of the details on SOS, Mayday, EPIRBs as it's repeated in the relevant articles.

I've made a differentiation between distress on land, sea and air. You'll spot that my knowledge is sea, so contributions to the land and air sections especally welcomed! --Canthusus 14:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Merge 216.185.69.77 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)--216.185.69.77 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Merge. --CeruleanShine 14:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I oppose merging. The merged article would be too big, and difficult to navigate. The specialised technical information about marine distress signals merits a separate article. CarolGray 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Merge, I agree. -- --NvR 11:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

406 MHz
The Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon article keeps talking about modern beacons using the frequency of 406 MHz. Why isn't this mentioned in this article? --ZeroOne 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Distress
''The recognised mountain distress signals are based on groups of three (six in the UK).

This is misleading, partly due to American bias. Six flashes, sounds, blasts or waves is known as the international distress signal and is recognised right across Europe, whereas in North America (US and Canada) three of anything is often described as the international distress signal. Unfortunately, I can't find a definitive source of information. American web sites claim three, European sites (and books) claim six. I can't comment on US books, since I don't have any. 82.39.52.234 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link
This link: http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife/distress.htm from the bottom, seems to be broken. I don't want to take it out yet in case it is a temporary problem. HeavyD14 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Try http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife_archived_9-21-2007/distress.htm as the original version is still 404. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inverted flags
A British flag inverted is much easier to detect than you might think, as British ships will fly a naval flag, not the Union Flag, so one could invert the appropriate naval flag; see Flag of the United Kingdom for the appropriate flags, such as the civil ensign, here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah; I'm removing that example. The Union Flag is only flown by navy ships and rarely at that. Two examples is enough, anyway. Sabik (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inverted national flags are awkward at best; apparently inverting Poland gives Indonesia. There was also the claim that the Flag of Russia was by tradition inverted during wartime (the standard white top / red bottom orientation is used in peacetime) but I can't find a source for it at the moment. Then again, if kamikaze pilots were flying an inverted flag of Japan, odds are no one would recognise it as a distress condition until after it's too late. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Small technical inaccuracy
The text: "transmitting a spoken voice Mayday message by radio over very high frequency (shorter range VHF) channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and/or high frequency (longer range HF) on 2182 kHz..." incorrectly associates the frequency of 2182 kHz as being in the "high frequency" band. In fact, it is in the Medium Frequency band defined as 300 kHz to 3000 kHz. Patrick (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition
I added Pan-pan before Mayday to provide the correct impression (Pan-pan being more appropriate in most situations over mayday). It is to be stated also in the article that emergencies need to be called correctly to ensure that the people who are most urgently need to be helped get that kind of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.66.161 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the definition, should it not be better to say: A distress signal is a signal sent to obtain help. It is internationally recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.66.161 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ranges
The ranges of the frequency channels are to be named eg VHF with a typical vessel radio (25Watt with cord of 12m; straight up) only has a range of 16-19 km (ref: Sailing for dummies by JJ Isler http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Sailing-For-Dummies-2nd-Edition.productCd-0471791431.html) High-frequency has a range of thousands of kilometers Inmarsat-C finally has almost unlimited range

Perhaps that High frequency radio could be boosted with the Internet Radio Linking Project. This would reduce the cost of the radio and offer increased protection from emergencies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.28 (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Distress signal. 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.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1996-title36/html/USCODE-1996-title36-chap10-sec176.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314122732/http://www.uscgboating.org:80/safety/metlife_archived_9-21-2007/distress.htm to http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife_archived_9-21-2007/distress.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331125636/http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/BIL/TP9878/PDF/HR/TP9878.PDF to http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/bil/tp9878/pdf/hr/tp9878.pdf

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) 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Signal mirror needs an article
It seems that after all these years, we do not have an article on the humble signal mirror?

I'm not talking about any old mirror. I'm talking about mirrors specifically made to be used by people in trouble, with aiming devices. The US issued one type in WW2 that had a cross-shaped aiming device in the center, difficult to use, but it worked. Or the more recent ones (far superior) that have an aiming device in the center made of a retroreflecting grid. (US "mark 3") i.e. there is some history.

This could start as a section here and eventually split to its own article if size warrants. Jeh (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Distress signal. 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/20091213230400/http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/xf-flip.html to http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/xf-flip.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/metlife_archived_9-21-2007/distress.htm

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) 12:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Distress signal


text:
Zhang Bairen

Peter Zhang Bairen (February 14, 1915 – October 12, 2005) was the unofficial Bishop of Hanyang, China.

Chinese authorities did not officially recognize Bishop Peter Zhang; however, he was officially consecrated as a monsignor within the Roman Catholic Church in 1986, by Liu Hede, the unofficial Bishop of Hankou.

Monsignor Zhang spent twenty-four years in prison and labor camps following his continued loyalty to the Pope (1955–1979). In an unusual concession, local authorities permitted Zhang's funeral services to be open to the public.

The funeral took place in October and was attended by both official and unofficial clergy members.

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

title: Zhang Bairen


text: User talk:70.224.57.111

title: User talk:70.224.57.111


text: User talk:70.108.244.33

title: User talk:70.108.244.33


text:
Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College

Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College (NEO) is a public community college in Miami, Oklahoma. Established as the Miami School of Mines in 1919, NEO has an enrollment of approximately two thousand students. The Golden Norsemen is the school mascot.

History
The Oklahoma Senate passed Senate Bill 225 on March 17, 1919 to establish the Miami School of Mines. The school began operations in September 1920. In 1924, the school became Northeastern Oklahoma Junior College, as mining became less important in Miami. In April 1943, the Board of Regents for the Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges gained control of the college, and the college became Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College.

Academics
Northeastern Oklahoma A&M offers certificate programs and associate degrees.

Athletics
Northeastern Oklahoma A&M self-identifies in athletics as "NEO", and its mascot is Golden Norsemen for men's sports and Lady Norse for women's sports. Men's sports at NEO are baseball, football, basketball, soccer, and wrestling. Women's sports are basketball, softball, soccer, and volleyball. NEO also fields agricultural sports: horseback riding, horse judging, livestock judging, and rodeo.

Notable alumni

 * Remi Ayodele – professional football player
 * Matt Blair – professional football player
 * Romby Bryant – professional football player
 * Mike Butcher – professional baseball player and coach, attended NEO in 1983-1984
 * Marion Butts – professional football player
 * Bo Bowling, professional football player
 * Scott Case – professional football player
 * Charlie Clemons – professional football player
 * Jason Dickson – professional baseball player, attended NEO c.1993
 * Ernest Givins – professional football player
 * Chuck Hoskin – Member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives
 * Tony Hutson – professional football player
 * Deji Karim – professional football player, attended NEO 2005-2006.
 * Brandon Keith – professional football player, graduated in 2005.
 * Ramón Laureano - Professional baseball player.
 * Ken Lunday – professional football player
 * Juqua Parker – professional football player
 * Tony Peters – professional football player
 * Jeremy Shockey – professional football player, attended NEO in 1999.
 * Chuck Smith – professional football player
 * Lamar Smith – professional football player
 * Jace Sternberger - professional football player
 * Greg Tremble – professional football player
 * James Wilder Sr. – professional football player
 * Pat Williams – professional football player, graduated from NEO in 1995.

title: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College


text: User talk:82.4.10.97

title: User talk:82.4.10.97


text: User talk:168.8.27.4

title: User talk:168.8.27.4


text:
Talk:2001 Philippine Senate election

Image copyright problem with Image:People Power Coalition.gif
The image Image:People Power Coalition.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:2001 Philippine Senate election


text:
Chaiya railway station

Chaiya station (SRT Code: CIY, สถานีไชยา) is a first class and main railway station in northern Surat Thani Province, Thailand. It on the State Railway of Thailand (SRT) Southern railway line at km597.751 in Talad Chaiya Town, Chaiya District. It has two tracks in its rail yard, two platforms and has no siding for freight trains.

History
Chaiya Railway Station is the one of the oldest railway stations in Southern Thailand. It was opened in 1915 in an area that was later developed into the current Chaiya town. At that time the main settlement was at Phumriang, but many citizens moved to build houses near the new station, creating a settlement that grew to a new town.

Chaiya Railway Station's appearance was improved with repairs in November 2004. It was upgraded to a 2nd class station in May 2005, and upgraded to a 1st class station on 23 July 2010.

Service
, Chaiya Railway Station serves 20 train stops and four trains pass per day, all of them served by the SRT.
 * Diesel rail special express train No. 39 / 40 Bangkok - Surat Thani - Bangkok
 * Diesel rail special express train No. 41 / 42 Bangkok - Yala - Bangkok
 * Diesel rail special express train No. 43 / 44 Bangkok - Surat Thani - Bangkok
 * Express train No. 83 / 84 Bangkok - Trang - Bangkok
 * Express train No. 85 / 86 Bangkok - Nakhon Si Thammarat - Bangkok
 * Rapid train No. 167 / 168 Bangkok - Kantang - Bangkok
 * Rapid train No. 169 / 170 Bangkok - Yala - Bangkok
 * Rapid train No. 171 / 172 Bangkok - Sungai Kolok - Bangkok
 * Rapid train No. 173 / 174 Bangkok - Nakhon Si Thammarat - Bangkok
 * Local train No. 445 / 446 Chumphon - Hat Yai - Chumphon

Transportation
Many lines of minibuses connect the town of Chaiya and the station with other parts of the district and neighbouring districts, such as Chaiya - Bandon, Chaiya - Phunphin, Chaiya - Phumriang, Chaiya - Tha Chana.

title: Chaiya railway station


text:
Amsoft

Amsoft was a wholly owned subsidiary of Amstrad, PLC, founded in 1984 and re-integrated with its parent company in 1989. Its purpose was to provide an initial infrastructure of software and services for users of Amstrad's range of home computers, the Amstrad CPC and, from 1986, the ZX Spectrum. Many people's first contact with software on an Amstrad home computer would have been an Amsoft title, as several titles were included in the sales bundles.

History
While developing its first home computer, the Amstrad CPC 464, Amstrad assessed that part of the success of its competitors' machines was the backing of a grown infrastructure of software and services. Being a newcomer to the computer market, Amstrad decided to artificially create this infrastructure for the launch of their own computers. In February 1984, Amstrad founded its Amsoft division headed by Roland Perry and William Poel who at the time were also overseeing the development of the Amstrad CPC 464 itself.

Most prominently, Amsoft acted as the first-party game and business software publisher for Amstrad computers. Most of its software products were licensed from various third-party developers and published under the Amsoft label. This also provided a risk-free means for established software studios to try out their products in the emerging Amstrad CPC market. In addition to publishing software, Amsoft was tasked with press relations and consumer promotion, most notably creating and maintaining the Amstrad User Club and publishing its periodical, the CPC 464 User (later Amstrad Computer User).

When a reliable third-party support had been established, Amsoft gradually faded out the publishing of software and sold the Amstrad User Club as well as the user magazine. By 1989, Amsoft was fully integrated with the main Amstrad corporation and ceased to exist as a separate entity.

1984

 * American Football
 * Astro Attack
 * Blagger
 * Bridge-It
 * Electro Freddy
 * Fruit Machine
 * The Galactic Plague
 * Harrier Attack
 * Haunted Hedges
 * Hunchback
 * Laserwarp
 * Mr Wong's Loopy Laundry
 * Mutant Monty
 * Oh Mummy
 * Punchy
 * Quack-a-Jack
 * Roland Ahoy
 * Roland on the Ropes
 * Roland in the Caves
 * Roland Goes Digging
 * Roland Goes Square Bashing
 * Roland on the Run
 * Spannerman
 * Space Hawks
 * Sultan's Maze
 * Pyjamarama
 * Detective
 * Xanagrams
 * Animal Vegetable Mineral
 * Happy Letters
 * Map Rally
 * Timeman One / L'Horloger 1
 * Wordhang
 * Fruit Machine
 * Amsgolf
 * Codename MAT
 * Hunter Killer
 * Snooker
 * L'Ardoise Magique
 * Les Chiffres Magiques
 * Le Géographe - France
 * Le Géographe - Monde
 * L'Horloger 2 / Timeman Two
 * Les Lettres Magiques
 * Osprey!
 * Star Watcher
 * Admiral Graf Spee

1985

 * 3D Grand Prix
 * Jet-Boot Jack
 * Airwolf
 * Assault on Port Stanley
 * Doors of Doom
 * Dragon's Gold
 * Frank 'n' Stein
 * Friss Man
 * Fu-Kung in Las Vegas
 * The Game of Dragons
 * The Key Factor
 * Manic Miner
 * The Prize
 * Roland in Time
 * Roland in Space
 * Seesaw
 * Super Pipeline 2
 * Supertripper
 * Sorcery Plus
 * Cyrus 2 Chess
 * Masterchess
 * Happy Numbers
 * Stockmarket
 * Traffic
 * 3D Boxing
 * 3D Stunt Rider
 * Alex Higgins World Pool
 * Alex Higgins' World Snooker
 * Glen Hoddle Soccer
 * Rock Hopper
 * Strangeloop Plus
 * Subterranean Stryker
 * Tombstowne
 * Kingdoms
 * Braxx Bluff
 * Overlord 2
 * Campeones
 * Classic Racing
 * L'Apprenti Sorcier
 * Satellite Warrior

1986

 * Qabbalah
 * Happy Writing
 * Nuclear Defence
 * Golden Path
 * 6128 Games Collection

1987–1989

 * Scalextric (1987)
 * Tank Command (1988)
 * Fantastic Voyage (1989)

title: Amsoft


text:
User talk:Woodcock

New Yanoff
I'll look into this as soon as possible. I think I know what to do about this, but copyright is a tricky thing on Wikipedia, and I'd rather give you a correct answer later than a wrong answer now, and I need to read up on our policies (and yes, they are difficult to navigate sometimes). Thanks for your patience. a ndroid 79  14:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Woodcock


text:
Sverdlovsk anthrax leak

On 2 April 1979, spores of Bacillus anthracis (the causative agent of anthrax) were accidentally released from a Soviet military research facility in the city of Sverdlovsk, Soviet Union (now Yekaterinburg, Russia). The ensuing outbreak of the disease resulted in the deaths of at least 68 people, although the exact number of victims remains unknown. The cause of the outbreak was denied for years by the Soviet authorities, which blamed the deaths on consumption of tainted meat from the area, and subcutaneous exposure due to butchers handling the tainted meat. The accident was the first major indication in the Western world that the Soviet Union had embarked upon an offensive programme aimed at the development and large-scale production of biological weapons.

Background
Sverdlovsk had been a major production center of the Soviet military-industrial complex since World War II. By the 1970s, 87 per cent of the city's industrial production was military; only 13 percent for public consumption. It produced tanks, ballistic missiles, rockets and other armaments. The city has at times been referred to as Russia's Pittsburgh because of its large steelmaking industry. During the Cold War, Sverdlovsk became a Soviet "closed city" to which travel was restricted for foreigners.

The biological warfare (BW) facility in Sverdlovsk was built during the period 1947 to 1949 and was a spin-off of the Soviet Union's main military BW facility in Kirov. It was allocated the former site of the Cherkassk-Sverdlovsk Infantry Academy in Sverdlovsk on Ulitsa Zvezdnaya, 1, and abutted the southern industrialised sector of the city. The new facility, known as the USSR Ministry of Defence's Scientific-Research Institute of Hygiene, became operational on 19 July 1949. Alibek suggests that the construction of the institute incorporated technical knowledge which had been extracted from captured Japanese scientists who had participated in the Japanese biological warfare programme. Research was initiated at Sverdlovsk on bacterial pathogens including Bacillus anthracis. In 1951, a programme was launched which focussed on botulinum toxin. Later in the 1970s, interest in the latter ceased and there was a major shift in focus to B. anthracis. In 1974, the facility was re-named as the Scientific-Research Institute of Bacterial Vaccine Preparations.

The BW facility at Sverdlovsk was located within a military base known as Compound 19 (19th gorodok, Russian:19-й городок) which itself was created between 1947 and 1949. Compound 19 abutted the southern industrialised sector of the city in the Chkalovskii district. It was located immediately adjacent to the Vtorchermet housing estate. A meat-processing plant was located nearby with a view to supplying components of bacterial nutrient media. There was a high degree of autonomy with regard to the secret base. As well as the military institute, Compound 19 embraced its own 75-bed military hospital, a postal service, a range of shops, a kindergarten, schools, a social club, a sports stadium, parks and walkways, a civil registry office and its own special prosecutor's office. Sentries and construction workers at the site required special security clearance. A Russian television crew visited the site shortly after the collapse of the USSR. It is likely that much of what they observed may not have been greatly different from the situation in 1979. They reported that Compound 19 comprised around 200 hectares and was sub-divided into three main zones. The first, residential zone, housed the scientists and their families, around 7,000 inhabitants, along with the ancillary services described above. Nestled within the outer zone there was a check-point which provided restricted access to a so-called industrial zone. At the very heart of Compound 19, guarded by a final check-point and barbed wire, was the most secret special working zone which housed the main administration building together with secret laboratories and production units housed underground.

During the 1960s, Compound 32, an army base with barracks and apartments for Soviet soldiers serving in armoured and artillery units, and with no connection to BW, was added to the southern edge of Compound 19.

Accident
In their authoritative account, Leitenberg and Zilinskas with Kuhn report that, at some point during the period 2–3 April 1979, a mass of B. anthracis spores were released from a four-story building located in Compound 19's special zone. The building housed a production unit which produced dry B. anthracis spores for weapons use. The unit was manned by 40 personnel and commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Nikolai Chernyshov. The spores created a plume which the wind carried over parts of Sverdlovsk itself as well as a number of rural villages. Russian sources indicate that the release occurred as a result of a defect in an air-handling system which carried exhaust from a spray dryer. The release, according to one Russian source took place during the evening or night of 2–3 April. Based on interviews with friends and families of victims, together with a study of wind data, Meselson and his investigative team conclude that the release probably took place during the day of 2 April.

The precise number of fatalities associated with the military leakage of anthrax spores is not known. Meselson's group report that the incident led directly to the deaths of at least 68 people in Sverdlovsk itself and to cases of animal anthrax in nearby villages (Rudnii, Bol'shoe Sedelnikovo, Maloe Sedelnikovo, Pervomaiskii, Kashino and Abramovo) to the south-east of the city. Leitenberg and Zilinskas with Kuhn quote a Russian source which indicates that "According to the official data, 95 people were infected, 68 (71.5 per cent) died [but] actually the number of the dead and infected was larger". The leakage of anthrax hit the ceramics factory, south of Compound 19, the hardest. The factory, which employed 2,180 personnel, was in possession of a ventilation system which sucked air from the outside, directing some to the furnaces with the remainder being directed to the workforce. In the coming weeks at least 18 workers at the factory died.

In response to the incident, the Soviet authorities acted to mobilise medical teams in the affected district. Tetracycline was administered to affected households, sick rooms were disinfected and potentially contaminated sheets and clothing were collected. Checks for illness in family members were made. Individuals who had fevers were directed to polyclinics and those who were very ill were transferred to the local Hospital 40. A Moscow-controlled Extraordinary Commission was eventually established to manage the response and on the 22 April firemen and factory workers began hosing down buildings with solutions of chlorine. The large-scale vaccination of the population in the affected Chkalovskii district was also undertaken by the authorities. In all, some 80 per cent of around 59,000 eligible individuals were injected with the Soviet STI anthrax vaccine. The latter had been manufactured by the Scientific-Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera based in Tbilisi, Georgia. The first indication in the West of the accident in Sverdlovsk was a story which appeared in January 1980 in an obscure Frankfurt-based magazine named Possev which was published by a group of Russian emigres. It claimed that there had been an outbreak of anthrax in April 1979 in Sverdlovsk after an explosion at a military settlement south-west of the city.

In 1986, Matthew Meselson of Harvard University was granted approval by Soviet authorities for a four-day trip to Moscow where he interviewed several senior Soviet health officials about the outbreak. He later issued a report which agreed with the Soviet assessment that the outbreak was caused by a contaminated meat processing plant, concluding the Soviets' official explanation was completely "plausible and consistent with what is known from medical literature and recorded human experiences with anthrax". However, the Soviet version of events was fatally undermined when, in October 1991, the Wall Street Journal sent its Moscow Bureau Chief, Peter Gumbel, to Sverdlovsk to investigate the outbreak. After interviewing numerous families, hospital workers and doctors, he is reported to have found the Soviet version of events "riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths and plain falsehoods".

This was followed by an admission in May 1992 by President Boris Yeltsin, who had been Sverdlovsk's Communist Party chief at the time of the accident, that the KGB had revealed to him that "our military development was the cause". Based on these reports a team of Western scientists led by Meselson gained access to the region in June 1992. Before they arrived they had been provided by the authorities with a list of 68 known incident victims in Sverdlovsk. By visiting and questioning in their homes surviving relatives of those who had died, the investigating researchers ascertained both where the victims had been living and where they had been during daylight hours at the time during which hospital admission records indicated a possible release into the atmosphere of anthrax dust. When the locations were plotted on maps, the places where the victims lived did not form a clear geographical pattern. However, there was a very precise indication from their reported locations during working hours, that all of the victims had been directly downwind at the time of the release of the spores via aerosol. Livestock in the area were also affected. Had the winds been blowing in the direction of the city at that time, it could have resulted in the pathogen being spread to hundreds of thousands of people. Meselson's original contention for many years had been that the outbreak was a natural one and that the Soviet authorities were not lying when they disclaimed having an active offensive bio-warfare program, but the information uncovered in the investigation left no room for doubt.

Aftermath
In April 1992, President Boris Yeltsin issued a decree On ensuring the implementation of international pledges in the sphere of biological weapons. Under the reforming president, there was a desire, over time, to shift the Ministry of Defence's BW institutes from military jurisdiction to work for the civil economy. It was against this background, that at some point between 1992 and 1994, a representative from the US investment bank and stock brokerage firm Paine Webber Incorporated, held a meeting with members of Russia's Committee on Convention Problems of Chemical and Biological Weapons which was specifically focused on the potential for cooperation with Compound No. 19 (Ekaterinburg) in the areas of infectious diseases in animals and production of veterinary vaccines. The project eventually floundered because of the Russian military's desire to maintain the "closed" (highly restricted access) status of its biological facilities.

Medical anthropologist Jeanne Guillemin, member of the 1992 expedition team and wife of Meselson, published a comprehensive book about the investigation in 1999, titled Anthrax – The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak.

In August 2016, the journal Science reported that anthrax scientist Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff) and colleagues had attempted to sequence the B. anthracis genome from two samples taken from victims of the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak. The samples had been preserved by local Russian pathologists who investigated the outbreak as it was occurring. Later, they shared the material with Professor Meselson during his investigative trip in 1992 (see above). The samples had been fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin and the DNA was, as a result, badly degraded. Nevertheless, the US researchers were able to isolate the pathogen's DNA and piece together its entire genome, comparing it with hundreds of other anthrax isolates. Keim and his team reported that they had not found any genomic evidence that the Soviet military had attempted to grow an antibiotic- or vaccine-resistant strain or genetically engineered the strain in any way. Meselson commented that although this was a perfectly ordinary strain, "that doesn't mean it wasn't nasty. It was extracted from people who were killed by it."

Zilinskas and Mauger in 2018 provided the most up-to-date information regarding the current status of the Sverdlovsk military facility. Under the National System of Chemical and Biological Safety/Security of the Russian Federation, funding has been provided to the Sverdlovsk institute for the renovation of two facilities for the production of antibiotics. Such products could be used in the civil medical sector. Major reconstruction work has also been carried out with regard to a building that used to produce B. anthracis spores. A building used for media and substrate production has also been extensively renovated. Refurbishment has also been underway in recent years of an open-air test site—the so-called Pyshma field test base—for the Sverdlovsk institute. Once complete, it was intended to be used to "assess the effectiveness of means and methods of biological prospecting and the elimination of the consequences of emergency situations". , this refurbishment project remained incomplete.

In August 2020, the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) imposed "blacklist" restrictions on three Russian military biological institutes for their alleged involvement with the Russian biological weapons programme. One of these was the Sverdlovsk institute (now operating under the name 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, Yekaterinburg). On 2 March 2021, additional US sanctions were imposed on the 48 Central Scientific Research Institute Yekaterinburg (aka 48th TsNII Yekaterinburg) along with its associated military BW institutes in Kirov and Sergiev Posad.

title: Sverdlovsk anthrax leak


text:
Talk:Mathematics of general relativity/Archive 1

Need for significant changes
This is not a good discussion of the math of GR. As-is, its contents would be better merged into the Einstein field equation (EFE) page.

NEEDED:
 * 1) Properly define a tensor in GR, which is a represntation of a quantity that is correctly transformed by the Lorentz transformations
 * 2) * Position vectors, scalar derivatives, etc. are tensors because they transform properly
 * 3) * Christoffel symbols do not transform properly and so are not tensors in GR even though they are expressed using the tensor calculus syntax.
 * 4) Describe metric tensors and how they
 * 5) * describe the shape of spacetime, and
 * 6) * are used to lower and (with its inverse) raise tensor indexes.
 * 7) Describe, position, relativistic velocity (uμ), and acceleration vectors.
 * 8) * Invariants from vectors through inner multiplication of a vector and its corresponsing form. (Example:  $$ds^2 =  x^\mu x_\mu$$).
 * 9) Describe important rank-2 tensors:
 * 10) * The EM field tensor
 * 11) * The stress-energy tensor
 * 12) Breifly describe curvature tensors.
 * 13) * Describe the connections and their use in creating the geodesic equations of motion in GR.
 * 14) * Describe the Reimann and Ricci tensors
 * 15) Breifly describe the EFE, leaning heavily on there already being an EFE article.
 * 16) * Describe strategies for solving and approximating solutions for the EFE.

I will work on this when I can get to it, but encourage others to tackle these in the meantime. This can and should be a good, comprehensive article. --EMS | Talk 15:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User EMS, please try to be more polite when criticising someone else's work. I agree that a lot more needs to be done to improve the article.

 * My apologies for insulting you, but I have found in productive even when I cannot work on a page to explain my objections and suggest improvements.

In response to your suggestions:

 * Firstly, I think if all the above suggestions were included, the article would be too long (even taking into account some of the brief descriptions). A lot of what is mentioned in the suggestions is already on other pages linked to GR.

 * If this is about the math of GR, then it should be about that. If needed, it should reference articles about sub-topics, such as tensors in GR.  But one way or another the points in the outline given above need to be touched on.  If they are not present in the actual article, they should only be a link or two away.  To the extent that other articles cover points in the outline, those should be linked to and allowed to provide the details.

 * The definition of a tensor in GR given in point 1 appears to be incorrect: a tensor in GR is a representation of a (usually physical) quantity that transforms according to non-singular coordinate transformations (not just Lorentz ones), each transformation being determined by two observers' reference frames.

 * It is a little more involved than that. Consecutive transformations on each index of a tensor should yield the correct overall transformation.  That is not the case for Christoffel symbols and that page ducuments why.

 * If invariants are to be mentioned, then an explanation of why they are important (they're observer independent for example) should be given, as it's not necessarily obvious to non-specialists.

 * Agreed.

 * Regarding the descriptions of the Riemann and Ricci tensors, it may be better to describe the Riemann tensor as being made up of two bits: the Weyl and Ricci tensors; then possibly mention the physical significance of each bit. Of course, the geometrical significance of the Riemann tensor should be given too.

 * That sounds good. Dealing with those tensors are where this gets tricky, because articles on those topics already exist.  The goal for this article is to tie it together, explaining why they are so important to GR.

 * The detailed strategies for solving and approximating solutions for the EFE should clearly be in the Einstein field equation article, not here, as its more technical than just describing the maths of GR. A brief description of what is involved may be appropriate in the maths of GR article.

Mpatel 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * EFE solutions is a topic that this page needs to touch on, but perhaps only touch on. The EFE article itself of course can say more.  Beyond that, this is an area where each method could use an article of its own.

 * It will take some work, some experimentation, and some strategy to put together a good article here. My main gripe btw is not about what currently is in this page, but about the only math being presented here is the EFE or about the EFE.  This article should provide a good overview of the math, and be a roadmap to a wealth of related articles.

 * --EMS | Talk 21:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about this article being centred around the EFE; if I remember correctly, this article was part of the GR article, then I created this article (and made minor edits) hoping that people would include more maths (but nobody seems to have done so - yet). I've made a start in defining tensors - I hope the definition is sufficient for this article - and mentioned some examples of tensors in relativity. Perhaps a little section on tensors might be better.

Suggestion: is it worth having a (sub-)section for the Riemann tensor, given how important it is ? I mean, for example, about the Weyl/Ricci splitting and the physics of that, not to mention that the Ricci tensor is a contraction of the Riemann tensor - this might lead nicely into the EFE (once the energy-momentum tensor has been discussed).

Mpatel 16:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that a short section on tensors and what they are is essential. Unlike a general treatement of tensors (like the classical treatment of tensors page, you can emphsize that face the GR tensors all are with respect to a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Of course you need to hit on the tensor syntax, but if you do this right you can lean heavily on that classical-treatment page.

A section on the physical interpretations of the Riemann, Ricci, and Weyl tensors is a good idea. Note that the math is treated elsewhere, but should be briefly touched on and the approprate related articels linked to. Indeed, this kind of thing is why I am so critical of the current state of this article: It is not (yet) touching on these subjects but very much needs to.

--EMS | Talk 02:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

topology of spacetime in GR
As my knowledge of topological structures in GR is poor, perhaps some1 out there can contribute to the section on 'topological structure of spacetime'. Maybe some examples of spacetimes with (physically) interesting topologies (for example, ones which permit time travel, wormholes etc.) could be included. Mpatel 16:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The "topological structure" of spacetime is that of a curved, four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold. The individual topologies are given by various solutions to the EFE, being composed of a coordinate basis/system and a metric for the manifold as mapped with that coordinate system.

 * The details of specific EFE solutions are better off being covered in the Einstein field equations article, if not in articles for the solutions themselves.

 * --EMS | Talk 16:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revisions ready in my sandbox
A rewritten version of this page is now available at User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/mathematics_of_general_relativity. I propose to replace the current article with this one soon. So comments are being sought.

Do note that the part on the EFE is much shorter than the current text. So the tetrad stuff needs to be moved over to the EFE page. If noone does this first, I will do so before moving over my revisions.

--EMS | Talk 04:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Good to see that you have made a conscious effort in rewriting the maths of gr page, EMS. Just a few picky comments:

 * As far as I'm aware, the term 'line item' is not standard in describing the metric, but I think 'line element' is standard (though maybe that's what you meant).

 * You've written the geodesic equation as $$\ddot{x}^a=\Gamma^{a}_{bc}x^bx^c

$$; I think the standard way of writing the geodesic equation is $$\ddot{x}^a+\Gamma^{a}_{bc}x^bx^c=0$$. I can't remember all the details, but I think your geodesic equation arises as you're using a metric with trace -2, whereas to get the geodesic equation in standard form, the metric with trace +2 is used (basically, I think your Christoffel symbol is the negative of the one I use as a result of the different metric signature). Although many people use the metric with trace -2 (but not me), I think most people would recognise the geodesic equation in it's standard form.

 * There is a page four-vector which I editted some time ago. It has notations for four-velocity, four-acceleration etc. (although there may be some clashes on other pages). It may be better to use the notation currently in four-vector, as it's the main article on four-vectors - in any case, I hated using $$a^a$$ for the four-acceleration; I experimented with the notation some time ago and preferred $$A^a$$ for the four-acceleration.

 * Might want to redirect electromagnetic field tensor to Faraday tensor.

 * Forgive the pickiness of the above comments. I appreciate that your proposed version is still in it's infancy and will no doubt be expanded.

 * Mpatel 15:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The pickiness is quite forgiven. The business with the geodesic equation is sloppiness on my part, and will be changed.  (I use the sandbox for major revisions and let them sit for a day or two because I am prone to that kind of stuff.)  The other comments are also good.

 * I share your dislike for $$a^a$$ for the acceleration 4-vector, but all the same that seems to be the standard notation. I guess that it is hard to confuse the a's in it, or to confuse it with $${a^a}_b$$ (The Loretnz Transformation tensor).  Even so I came close to using your $$A^a$$ in that draft.  In the end, I decided that we are acting here as reporters on the field:  It is not our job to introduce new and novel concepts and notations, even if they are better.  (However, if you can find an alternate notation for the acceleration four-vector in the literature, we can reference the article and run with it.) --EMS | Talk 18:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes done
The new version of this article is now in place. The part of the tetrad formalism of EFE solutions has been moved to the EFE page. I saw nothing else in the old article that needed to be moved.

As noted by Mpatel, this is not a final product, but I think that it is a much better article on the math of GR than what preceeded it. More work is needed to flesh out the linkages to more abstract tensor calculus subjects. Note that I am trying to off-load much of the details on tensor calculus to the appropriate articles on the subject. This page should be more about how GR uses the tools of tensor calculus than about the tools themselves. (As Mpatel noted this would be an awfully big article if it covered all of the details. However, to me a greater problem is that most of those details are or will be or should be covered elsewhere.)  --EMS | Talk 16:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The changes made by EMS are a great start to what should ultimately be a great article. Regarding the notation for the four-acceleration, I was convinced that $$A^a$$ was the standard notation (at least here in Scotland). Anyway, W. Rindler in 'Introduction to Special Relativity' (2nd edn.) Clarendon Press, Oxford (1991) uses $$A^a$$ for the four-acceleration. Maybe we can get Chris Hillman to give us more insight. --- Mpatel 17:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The change in the four-acceleration terminology is now done. If Rindler (who is an authority on relativity) uses that syntax in his SR textbook, then my request for some coverage in the literature has been met.  As for Chris Hillman:  If we can resolve something like this ourselves we should do so.  Chris is an excellent resource, but I would think that he would rather be dealing with issues more important than whether an "a" should be capitalized or not.

 * BTW - I was not comfortable with referencing the existing four-vector article in this one. The four-vector article as-is is very SR oriented.  For the most part, the same laws do apply in GR, but often with the regular derivatives replaced with covariant derivatives.  (That is one of the big holes in this page btw - The covariant derivative and how it is used.  A related issue is how the math of GR relates to the math of SR.)

 * One more (albeit minor) thing: You decapitalized a "The" following a colon.  My understanding of the rule on capitalization following a colon is that a full sentence should behave like one (first word capitalized), but a fragment is not to start with a capital letter.  In the discussion of why the EFE has only 10 values, I considered the text following the colon to be a full sentense.  Hence the capital T. --EMS | Talk 19:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm glad that four-acceleration notation has been sorted - it's been bugging me for ages. Regarding the sentence after the colon, I don't think I ever recall seeing a capital letter after a colon, but I'm not too hot on the grammatical role of colons, so you're probably right. I don't have a problem with using the capital T. I'll change it back. --- Mpatel 10:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding the four-acceleration, I finally remembered why people are loathe to use Aa for: That is also the symbology for the EM four-potential!  My feeleing at this point is to leave it alone.  In principle we can use any symbology that we like, as long as the usage is properly defined.  So until and unless someone else gives us an alternate scheme and good reason to support it, Aa is and will be the Wiki "standard" notation for four-acceleration.

 * In the meantime, thanks for restoring my "T". Now I can drink my "T" without worrying about my "T". :-) --EMS | Talk 15:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was worried about that clash of notation between the four-acceleration and the four-potential. Here on WP, I use $$\tilde{A}^a$$ for the four-pot. - I know it's ugly, but guess what, Rindler solves this problem for us as well: he uses $$\phi^a$$ for the four-pot. Later, I think I'll change the four-pot. to Rindler's notation and reference it. I just spent ages responding to some user who started making claims about spacetime being a myth (see GR talk page). --- Mpatel 16:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the list of important tensors in relativity section, there is the energy-momentum tensor for dust. Perhaps it would be better to just write $$T_{ab}$$ (just like you stated $$F_{ab}$$ immediately afterwards) because at the moment it looks as though the general definition of the energy-momentum tensor is $$\rho_0u_au_b$$. Or even better, a little discussion of the energy-momentum tensor and important examples could be given. Just a suggestion. In case you're interested, I wrote down the energy-momentum tensor for a viscous fluid in energy-momentum density and also the EM one - you might want to check the notation for consistency. Mpatel 16:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).

 * Thanks for pointing that out. I will fix it now.  --EMS | Talk 20:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstract index notation
I think we should use the abstract index notation (AIN) for tensors consistently on the GR pages. Previously, I wrote things like, '...the metric tensor components are $$g_{ab}$$...', but now I believe that we should make it a standard for the GR pages to use the AIN. I hope we can reach a quick consensus (in the positive) on this point. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I certainly can go along with it. However
 * This is a point that should be covered in standards for Chris' Wikiproject GTR, and
 * It is not fair to others to ask for this until it is fully explainted in the abstract index notation article.
 * So this is a good idea, but I think that you are ahead of things a bit. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing formulas
I have inserted a space between the Tba and the trailing comma because it made the formula look like it was a prime insted of a. Unfortunately, now the line is broken and the comma shows up first character of the new line. Can someone who knows how to insert a non-break space please fix this? Thanks. 84.160.232.20 06:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

My turn
Chris has suggested that this article needs a HUGE cleanup - and he's right. I'd like to have a shot at this if nobody minds. I'll have a bit of time at the weekend. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent! ---CH (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't say that I object. My edits were intended to get the page moving in the right direction, but it has stagnated since then.  So I say to go for it.  --EMS | Talk 04:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S.: To Chris -
 * There is one thing that is bugging me: It is all fine and dandy to place the cleanup tag on this article and say that it needs a huge amount of work.  However, it would be much better to place in this discussion page a more specific description of what you think is wrong and how this page can be improved.  I have found that making explicit points does a lot to propel actual improvements.  For example:  When I first came to Wikipedia the GR page was terrible even in comparison to the state that you found it in.  I made a number of comments about it initially, and within a few weeks, they had been addressed by others.  --EMS | Talk 04:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I put the tag there (before MPatel's revision). I agree that proper comments would have been much preferrable, but I was trying to get a lot done that day.---CH  (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we include an outline of Einstein's derivation of GR theory as described in the paper? Pepebuslo 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The title is wrong - this is not mathematics, but a very old-fashioned writing on physics. Stay basis-free - with the notion of Singer & Thorpe, Kulkarni, Nomizu and followers - and some skilled mathematicians will jump into. In this not basis-free notion everything possible already has been found out by Einstein himself (and by Lichnerowics for gravitational waves), up to that moment where the index notation couldn't help any longer. If you don't do that, there will be no progress in GR beyond speculations like strings and higher dimensional spaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.134.62 (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mpatel's major revision
I've just made some major revisions to the article. I intend to keep as much of EMS' work as possible, as it's all essential. Just need to work around it. A few things:

 * I've included some physical reasons for choosing manifolds as the 'basis' for the maths of GR.

 * Still need stuff on tangent spaces and more on tensor and vector fields.

 * I'll leave the high-powered maths of fibre bundles, spinors etc. for others (Chris ?) to deal with, but I'll create the sections and write a few words to get started.

 * I think some more on the topology of manifolds should be included.

 * Some info. on (covariant and Lie) derivatives + explanation of why partial derivatives are inadequate. For Lie derivatives, the intimate connection with vector fields needs discussion; then this needs to be linked with local 1-parameter diffeo.'s.

 * Tonnes of references and reliable external links (both these should be easy).

I think I underestimated the magnitude of this major revision task! Comments welcome. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

A few more changes have been made. The article is still a little 'choppy' and is by no means complete, but before I try to get it to flow smoothly, I'd like some feedback on my edits. Just want to make sure we're all on the same track. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll have another major burst of activity in this article on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday (long weekend). In the meanwhile, feel free to make any changes you see fit (by 'you', I mean probably Chris and Ed). ---Mpatel (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You (MP and EMS) have probably noticed that I've been working recently on some mathematical background stubs (e.g. kinematic decomposition of timelike unit vector fields). I plan to edit Energy conditions and some other articles on MP in near future, also to try to create new stubs on the Riemann tensor in gtr and on the meaning of the EFE.  Regarding the latter, some of this might eventually be merged with existing articles, but in light of the recent problems with wikiservice (MUUUUCH better in last few days!), I am thinking there might be a good point to having more short articles viz. fewer but very long articles.  Short articles are easier to create and organize, and we are less likely to encounter inadvertent edit conflicts.  Does anyone know what the accepted wisdom is vis a vis whether many short articles or few long articles are best for wikiservers, especially in the case of articles containing a good deal of LaTeX style pseudocode?---CH  (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, presentation should be the first consideration here. Wikiserver considerations should come afterwards.  However, I would think that shorter articles would be better for the servers too.  --EMS | Talk 16:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've managed to find some time to work on the article. If there are any suggestions for more technical info. (e.g., Chris, I know you're quite into the work on differential equations, so I can mention links to more detailed articles if you want - tell me which ones), then let me know. I've also made a few red links on solving geodesics and computing Christoffel symbols. Some juicy stuff on Christoffel symbols on the way ! ---Mpatel (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To do list
I just added a few random items off the top of my head. From the rapidly growing length of this list (which is not yet comprehensive), I draw the conclusion that this article must focus on trying to orient the befuddled newbie by describing in nontechnical terms the 'big picture', and sending him/her to specialized articles for more detail.

Instead of offering a long long list of references in this article, it might be best to link to the graduate textbook and special topics sections of General relativity resources, and mention that we intend that all specialized articles will eventually contain appropriate references.---CH (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly useful eprint
Hi, just notice this new eprint discussing influence of gtr on differential geometry.---CH (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Concern ...
Let me express a bit of concern about the intent and direction of this article. It seems to me to be turning into a book, rather than an article. Simply listing every topic from topology and geometry to string theory already would make this a very long article. Then, trying to provide a formal, one paragraph description of each topic will only make it longer. (And I note that this article is already almost too long for a WP article).

I'd like to get you to ask yourself "what am I really trying to accomplish with this article?", and then review if this is really the best way of accomplishing that.

In particular, the reader who already knows about metrics won't want to read the first half of this article. And the reader who doesn't know about metrics will promptly zoom off elsewhere. So I'm concerned that you may not be acheiving your goals here.

I'm also concerned that some topics I'd consider as "central" aren't even mentioned: e.g. the Lagrangian variational formulation, (which is the "natural" way to get einsteins eqns; it also opens the door to electrodynamics, kaluza klein, hopf fibrations, and string theory.) So to even mention these central topics would grow the article even further.

FWIW, one of the nicest articles I've seen linking GR to topology is Raoul Bott, On some recent interactions between mathematics and physics, Canad. Math. Bull 28 (1985) p 129-165. This was an invited lecture to the Canadian math soc. and is a good whirlwind tour of the subject. (and despite being a whirlwind, i.e. giving only very breif descriptions of each point, it is still much much much longer than this article). linas 14:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Linas, your concerns are noted and those of us involved in the GTR project have thought about and discussed these issues.

 * At the start of this article, there are 4 tags - read them.

 * I am in the (long) process of rewriting this article. As for the article becoming very long, I am constantly thinking about that and am trying out things to see how the article will look - the article is by no means complete; hence all the tags.

 * As for the Lie derivative stuff, the reason I want more details of the Lie derivative on that page is because I won't have to include more stuff on Lie derivatives in this article !!! I certainly don't want that nasty tensor expression here.

 * As for your argument about the readers who know/don't know about metrics, well this article will serve the needs of both readers (another thing we've included in the GTR project).

 * As for this article turning into a 'textbook', well that's tough. If you know anything about the maths of GR, you'll know that there's a huge amount of it. The purpose of this article is to tell people which areas of mathematics are used in GR and WHY. At the moment, it's been agreed that I (as a project member) take on this task for the time being and see what people think of my edits. I've just started revising the article, and as indicated above, am nowhere near satisifed with what's there at present.

 * Giving a review of this technical area will inevitably involve links to more technical areas. Like I said above, if you want less technicality in this article, then you need more technicality in other articles, which is why I feel more technical details should be given in the Lie derivative article. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I must admit that the gargantuan list at the beginning of the article is more that a little daunting. Based on my reading of other comments, I realize that this article will not alone cover all of the listed topics.  However, that list does give people that impression that it will.  My suggestion is to move that grand list to Chris' Wikiproject GTR page, and condense the to-do list for this page to the items that this page needs to cover directly.  --EMS | Talk 20:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Linas, we have already recognized the issues you raised, so you can be sure we will bear them in mind as we develop th e article. Give us a change, please.  You say you like the long review article (which I will try to obtain, BTW).  So you must know that long is not neccessarily bad, but in any case it remains to be seen how long this article will turn out to be.---CH  (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Covariant derivatives and affine connections
I've decided to combine the two sections on (affine) connections and covariant derivatives, as they are intimately connected (no pun intended). I'd like some feedback on this please. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Will eliminate most of the current work in the 'covariant derivatives' subsection, as it's adequately covered in covariant derivative. Will replace it with information on the use of the covariant derivative in GR.

Lie derivatives
Again, some feedback on this would be appreciated. Maybe we can get some of the hardcore maths buffs here - maybe User: Tosha - to help us write something on Lie dragging in the Lie derivative page. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Tensors in GR
I've tried to include some intuition about the linearity property of tensors. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the metric tensor subsection needs to be reworked. ---Mpatel (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the intro. of this section a little. I'm still working on making this section better, especially the 2 subsections, as well as reducing some of the technicalities on tensors. ---Mpatel (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe there may be an error in this section. Since I'm only learning, I'm not sure, so I let those who know best to decide. This section says: I think it should rather say: This is because functionals from the cotangent space would apply on vectors of the tangent space. What do you think? Ferred (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At $$\scriptstyle \, p,$$ these two vector spaces may be used to construct type $$\scriptstyle \, (r,\, s)$$ tensors, which are real-valued multilinear maps acting on the direct sum of $$\scriptstyle \, r$$ copies of the cotangent space with $$\scriptstyle \, s$$ copies of the tangent space.
 * At $$\scriptstyle \, p,$$ these two vector spaces may be used to construct type $$\scriptstyle \, (r,\, s)$$ tensors, which are real-valued multilinear maps acting on the direct sum of $$\scriptstyle \, r$$ copies of the tangent space with $$\scriptstyle \, s$$ copies of the cotangent space.

Riemann tensor
Created the page Riemann tensor (general relativity). Can dump (and organise) any relevant technical details in this new page.---Mpatel (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? What's wrong with the Curvature tensor page? I know that it covers the Riemann tensor generally in differential geometry, but why not just have a section within that page which talks about its implications to general relativity? Mike Peel 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot that needs to be discussed about the Riemann tensor in GR, for example, the importance of certain Riemann invariants, classification of the Riemann tensor in GR, physical significance of the Riemann tensor, splitting of Riemann tensor into 'Ricci' + 'Weyl' and what each of these bits mean, to name a few... MP  (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Lagrangians
Just created a new article: Variational methods in general relativity. ---Mpatel (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Analysis of edits
Mpatel -

I have given the article a once-over per your request. There are two items that I uncomfortable with. The first is your description of a tensor in the section Tensors in GR. I cannot see how that introduction communicates what a tensor is or how it is used. That equation looks correct, but the indexing is unwieldy, and you do not explain what T is. I would advise looking at Wald pp. 20-22 for an example of a more coherent description.

The second item is your description of the covariant derivative. You need to tell people what $$\Gamma$$/connections are before then.

Overall, it is good to see this article being taken well beyond where I left it. I think that you pretty much have a good overview of the subject in place. However, I very much advise being sure that you have the basics firmly in place and leave the more obtuse materials for other articles in the hierarchy. Be advised that my concerns with the GR pages are becoming less ones of making sure that the material is correct and reasonably complete and more ones of seeking to have the material be organized and accessible based on what is in the article and/or the articles that are being linked to. As you continue to edit this article please keep in mind that a correct but unintelliable article is no better than an incorrect but understandable one. (This is not to say that this article is curently unintelligable, but rater that that concern is the reason for my comments above.) --EMS | Talk 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Spacetime as a manifold
I plan to reduce this section slightly, once the article spacetime has enough details. Also need to mention the local isometry problem in here somewhere (and the Cartan-Karlhede algorithm). ---Mpatel (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

EFE
It is absolutely essential to somewhere discuss the evolution equation which explains how mass/momentum indirectly creates long-range gravitational interaction. That is, the EFE says that the immediate presence of mass/momentum in some region causes Ricci curvature there, but we need to explain how Ricci curvature causes Weyl curvature. In particular, in the course of concentrating matter to form the Sun, we move stuff around which causes gravitational radiation and gradually curls up the vacuum surrounding the increasingly dense concentration of matter. Roughly speaking. See my little essay on the RelWWW website.---CH (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Burnout
Ok, I've been slaving away at this article for about a month and I feel burned out. I've removed the cleanup tag as I think the article has been sufficiently 'cleansed'. The inuse tag has been removed as I plan to stay away from this article for a while (I've been looking at it for too long).

I also feel as though I've been hogging this article, so feel free to make any edits you (CH and EMS ?) think are appropriate. Please bear in mind that a lot of time has gone into rewriting the article, so I'd suggest making any major edits judiciously - or discuss these first. Of course, the article still needs a lot of content to be mentioned (see the todo list - I've just added a few more things on this list) as well as external links and references, but some of the stuff on the 'pending task' list will inevitably be mentioned elsewhere (for example, infinitesimal holonomy groups - too technical to even be mentioned in this article). Enjoy...

So, now I can start exploring some of the other GR pages... ---Mpatel (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You've done some great work! I'll try to work up the courage to assess how to continue, and I'll ask you before I make major changes.  ---CH  (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Just a point about the 'Why tensors ?' section at the start. I felt that an explanation of why tensors are used in relativity should be given straight away. I did elaborate on this justification later ('Tensors in GR'), so I don't mind if a mini-merger is done here. ---Mpatel  (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Felber vandal
An anon using IP 141.155.124.124 added the following to this and to General relativity:

''On February 11, 2006, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber announced a new exact solution to the Einstein field equations. His new solution takes into account the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light, which has never been done before. His research shows that a mass moving faster than 57.7% of the speed of light (approximately $$1.731 x 10^{8} m/s$$) will generate a narrow antigravity beam in front of it, thereby gravitationally repelling other masses lying in its immediate path. The greater the velocity of the mass, the stronger the force of the beam. Dr. Felber believes that his new solution can revolutionize space travel, predicting the possibility of a payload to be transported at a sufficient percentage of the speed of light by the end of the century.''

This apparently refers to an eprint I must have missed,. (Felber's affiliation is given as Physics Divsion, Starmark in San Diego, which might raise a few eyebrows; a minute with Google fails to clarify whether this "Starmark" is the same as a similarly named real estate company in that area, but with more effort this can no doubt be determined.) Needless to say, this kind of "announcement" of an unpublished (and possibly controversial!) eprint is utterly unacceptable in an encyclopedia! I haven't had a chance to look at the eprint yet, which dates from May, but I noticed right away that the claim that this alleged solution takes into account the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light, which has never been done before suggests a profound ignorance of the literature; see Aichelburg-Sexl_ultraboost and citations therein. This is not a good sign, but I'll keep an open mind until I look at the eprint. ---CH 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to come back to this later (since I'm in the middle of other stuff), but a glance at the actual eprint suggests that a better description would be that someone (possibly Carmeli, not Felber) has allegedly noticed a previously overlooked aspect of test particle motion in a known solution, namely some ultraboost (more than one is possible, confusingly enough!) of the Kerr vacuum, not to have found a new exact solution of the EFE. Felber apparently claims to have given a solution of the geodesic equations which validates the alleged effect.

The abstract is confusingly worded, but hopefully Felber knows the difference! This should become clear once I have a chance to read the eprint more carefullly. I did notice from glancing over the first few paragraph that it features some odd turns of phrase. Mashhoon does mention Felber's eprint in his own recent eprint Beyond Gravitoelectromagnetism: Critical Speed in Gravitational Motion, but this mention is very low key--- certainly I wouldn't read it as an "endorsement". I did see this Mashoon eprint, but haven't studied it yet.

Exotic propulsion is a fringe subject which has numerous very enthusiastic fans. I would caution them against letting their hopes overwhelm their critical judgment, and remind them that in an encyclopedia, we should strive to give an accurate and balanced account of the current mainstream thought in areas of potential scientific controversy. Let me just stress this: I would caution everyone against accepting uncritically anything said by anyone about alleged anti-gravity propulsion. Newcomers often mistake coordinate effects for physical effects (in fact, even experienced physicists do this much more often than I would like), and while Felber must be discussing some kind of "ultraboost", there are various possible "limits" of the Kerr or Schwarzschild vacuums, so this quickly gets very thorny. Carmeli and Mashhoon are well known in classical gravity, but I certainly wouldn't buy any of this until I have had a chance to check some computations myself, and no-one else should either!

And just to be clear, inserting "research announcments" in these WP articles is clearly vandalism, quite apart from anyone's judgement of the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the claims made in the announcment.---CH 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Perspective on article
I've come back to this article again. This time, I'm more interested in the organisation and how it relates to content. For example, I've just added a handful of 'main article' links. This is to reduce the content in this article that is (possibly) repeated (or explained better) in another article. Related to this, affine connection is currently a stub and some of the work in 'maths of GR' could be transferred to that stub. MP  (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've transferred the material in the affine connection section of this article to the affine connection article. Now I can slim the affine connection part of this article and include relevant notions for GR. MP  (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Students beware
This article concerns a topic dear to my heart, and I had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, although I hope for the best.

Good luck to User:Mpatel and to all students searching for information, regardless!---CH 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for recently added subsection
May I suggest that the new subsection on Solving the Einstein field equations be moved to the article solutions of the Einstein field equations, as it clearly belongs there and fits in better over there than it does here. The current article is supposed to be an overview of the maths of GR. Thanks. MP  (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
From the talk page of the "introduction" article (Talk:Introduction to mathematics of general relativity), there seemed in June of last year to be a reasonable consensus to merge the articles, but this wasn't actioned. I've therefore started the formal procedure, which will result in the articles being merged by default in two weeks (or sooner if consensus develops here). I agree with the participants on the "introduction" talk page that the main article is, in fact, a great deal more accessible to the non-technical reader, and I don't expect that there's going to be a lot of actual content that needs merging. Tevildo (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction article to me on a cursory scan seems not to be an introduction, but rather a summary of core mathematics, which is a quite different thing entirely. Would others agree with this? LinaMishima (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Support. The introduction article is actually more technical than this article. It merely summarizes the math used for general relativity, not introduces it. That article doesn't have much that this article doesn't have. Ummonk (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Protest. If the articles are too similar, maybe an introduction could be a bit more general and less technical. General relativity is a vast issue, and the mathematics required covers (partly) a slew of undergrad maths courses. There should indeed be two mathematical introductions: one for understanding the definitions of the equations (tensors, metrics, etc) and other for more general knowledge (maybe to help understand the particular solutions?). It serves more people than making the merged article pithy and technical enough for the students of the subject, for then mere amateurs would have no access to the subject on a broader level. Both are also rather lengthy. --Sigmundur (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Ummonk, no offence intended, but do you actually understand the math in either of these articles? This article requires a much deeper level of understanding of abstract algebra and differential geometry than the introductory one, which requires much less background to understand, but also less rigorous. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose. For those of us without formal higher-level mathematical education, many of the mathematical articles on Wikipedia are too difficult to understand.  Having the separate Intro article serves to keep much of this material still accessible to the average reader. I wish there were more mathematical articles that did not lapse into jargon that's impenetrable to the lay reader. TJRC (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both articles are very different in nature of length and depth. Should not be merged. The introduction article already has more than enough info to be fitted into the article without the general introduction. Keep both, but mention something like "For an introduction on..., please visit...." Prowikipedians (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * 'comment. Maybe some kindhearted mathematician will write an introduction to the introduction for those of us stuck back here in precalc.  I think there's quite a lot of people now who have read layman's texts on relativity (Einstein even wrote a basic-level text) but have no math background.  How about an introduction to the math of fields and vectors?  I don't know whether that addresses the merger, but I'll leave that up to you guys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.64.108 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I have been attempting to learn the mathematics of general relativity and have made some slow progress. I found this article a very good mathematical introduction. It presented all the mathematical tools in a concise and direct way. Its major strength was in the discussion of "Parallel transport". That was an entirely introductory and comprehensible description around which the mathematics became understandable. Many more advanced articles do not give the same insight.Mikebernstein (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Support The fact that this article is easier to understand than Mathematics of general relativity is completely irrelevant to the question of whether these two should be merged or not. That is an excuse for content forking. What it does indicate is that the Mathematics of general relativity needs to be better written (i.e. that it is probably violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (This is still live?) It would appear from the above that there's a consensus against merging, so it might be time to remove the tags.  However, I still feel I should point out that the issue is that _this_ article (Mathematics of general relativity) is _easier_ to understand than the so-called "Introduction" article.  Perhaps we should just swap them over. Tevildo (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Assistance
This article is currently under discussion at Editor assistance/Requests D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


text:
Tiradentes, Minas Gerais

Tiradentes is a municipality in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. It is located at -21.11028°N, -44.21139°W, has an area of 83.5 km², and a maximum elevation above sea level of 927 m. Tiradentes had an estimated population of 10,960, as of 2020. The original village was established in 1702 and became a city on 19 January 1718. In 1889 the city was renamed from Vila de São José do Rio das Mortes in honour of the national hero who was born nearby.

It has been acclaimed as an unspoiled example of Portuguese colonial architecture.

Other historical cities in Minas Gerais are Ouro Preto, São João del-Rei, Diamantina, Mariana, Congonhas and Sabará.

Geography
According to the modern (2017) geographic classification by Brazil's National Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the municipality belongs to the Immediate Geographic Region of São João del-Rei, in the Intermediate Geographic Region of Barbacena.

Ecclesiastical circumscription
The municipality is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of São João del-Rei.

title: Tiradentes, Minas Gerais


text:
Port of Rosario

The Port of Rosario is an inland port and a major goods-shipping center of Argentina, located in the city of Rosario, province of Santa Fe, on the western shore of the Paraná River, about 550 km upstream from the Atlantic Ocean.

Overview
The port is the largest of a series located in the several cities of the Greater Rosario that lie on the Paraná; the last (northernmost) able of overseas traffic being Puerto General San Martín (23 km upstream from Rosario). It is part of the Bi-Oceanic Corridor that joins the Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean via Buenos Aires, Rosario, Córdoba, the Cuyo region and Valparaíso, Chile; going north–south it forms the axis of the Paraguay-Paraná waterway. It directly services the area of Santa Fe that produces a large part of Argentine exports, and indirectly the whole Mercosur trade bloc. In 2003 the traffic in the port amounted to 2.9 million tonnes.

At this point of the course of the Paraná (Kilometer 420) lies the depth transition between overseas and river navigation. The main channel of the river directly in front of the port has an advantageous configuration that allows to preserve a depth of 34 feet with minor periodic dredging. This allows for downstream navigation of vessels up to Panamax kind. The Paraná is about 600 m wide at Kilometer 418 and becomes 2,000 m wide downstream. Cargo from other parts of Argentina is brought into the port by the railway lines of the Nuevo Central Argentino, communicating with Córdoba (west) and Zárate, Buenos Aires Province (south), as well as the multiple national and provincial roads and highways that converge in Rosario. Communication with the north-eastern part of the country was enhanced by the 2003 opening of the Rosario-Victoria Bridge, that joins the city with the province of Entre Ríos. The Rosario International Airport (located 15 km east) has also been refurbished to work with cargo traffic.

The facilities were opened in 1852 partly as a hedge against the political and armed conflicts that ultimately led to the Federalization of Buenos Aires. The rapid development of Argentine agriculture after 1875 led to the port growth into a significant role in the nation's burgeoning grain exports sector, in subsequent decades. The Port of Rosario was nationalized in 1942 and by 1960, it had overtaken the Port of Buenos Aires as the nation's leading grain export hub.

Administration
The Port of Rosario has, since 1994, been managed by ENAPRO (Ente Administrador del Puerto Rosario), a public company overseen by the provincial government, which grants concessions as appropriate to private companies. The first bid was won in 1998 by International Container Terminal Services (ICTSI), managers of the Port of Manila and of a terminal in the Port of Buenos Aires. ICTSI's Argentine subsidiary, Puerto Rosario S. A. (PROSA), faced labour conflicts and strikes after firing a number of port terminal workers it had promised to keep. It also failed to pay the royalties due to the ENAPRO and to perform the agreed investments. In 2000 the concession was revoked.

In 2002 a new company, Terminal Puerto Rosario S. A. (manager of the Port of Tarragona, Spain) was awarded the concession of Terminals 1 and 2 of the port for 30 years.

In October 2005 the National Secretariat of Ports and Navigable Ways ordered the beginning of works to dredge the Paraná to a depth of 34 feet, in the first stage, and later to 36 feet, downstream from Puerto General San Martín; this will allow for cargo vessels of up to 50,000 tonnes. The 34-feet stage (allowing for 46,600-tonne ships) was completed in August 2006.

Further information

 * PUERTO ROSARIO

title: Port of Rosario