User talk:Nimur

Looking to Contact You

Hey Nimur! You may remember a brown friend who you used to hang out with back in your days in New York. It's me. I've been looking for a good way to contact you, since it looks like your email is bouncing lately. Got a reason or two to drop you a line this time of year. I'll also get around to calling you soon, if I hopefully have the right number, but in the meantime, let me know what your updated email address is. Mine is still the same as before. Hope things are well, and I'm glad to see you're very active here - it's something I always wanted to do but never had enough time to seriously devote to. Vmanjr (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I still have your phone number, and email, I'll try to get in touch with you this weekend! Thanks for the note! Nimur (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You deserve this

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		for explaining that two pigeons can make a half-wave antenna (just not a very useful one) [1] Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Pigeons on my TV aerial?

"two pigeons in a row constitute a half-wave antenna at 700 MHz" That's a pretty cool intersection of radio invisible waves seems-like-magic and real-life objects! On the other hand, did you perhaps just crack the secret for implementing RFC 1149? DMacks (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My reply to your post

Hi Nimur. I thought you might be interested in my reply to your post at WP:Reference desk/Science#light pulse intensity with time. So I'm pointing it out to you here, because I figured you might not otherwise notice it, since the thread has been otherwise dead for a day and a half, and the topic is old enough that it's transcluded from the archives, so my reply doesn't show up in the ref desk's history. I've been too busy with real life to reply in a more timely manner. Red Act (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I figured there could be some unusual "edge effects" and wave packet shape effects, plus geometry, that might make the situation more complicated; but as I mentioned, "I don't know how..." - it's been a while since I did anything numerical with optical wave interference so I'm not the most well-equipped to evaluate the idea. Anyway, it's a neat concept, I've been thinking a lot lately about ways to create optical frequency-mixing. This is a hard problem. Nimur (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx!

The Refdesk Barnstar For helping me vanquish the despicable Ariel font once and for all. DRosenbach (Talk

My bad

As per header - Cheers for the heads up about including SERPs on the helpdesk Darigan (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk

Sorry for using your thread to moan about you. As you can probably guess my gripe was primarily that you had asked me to prove facts that were in the article BLU-82 and which I thought easily confirmable by a web search. eg searches for "BLU-82" or "GSX explosive" eg eg an example that should be reliable (snippet only).

By the way one of Melvin Cook's competitors to supply the explosive for the BLU-82 gives a simple account of why it was successful: archived conversation between Gerald Hurst and someone else (Gerald Hurst is this guy ,inventor of Astrolite)

Anyway sorry about what might seem a lot of fuss about nothing. I just got annoyed. I do however have a proper question (see reference desk talk page again).

I shouldn't have blown up like that, sorry.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we're all human (except the bots and search-engines). I'll work on my part, which is to keep my contributions up-to-snuff. I may be a "regular" but I do make mistakes, thank you for checking my work. It keeps me honest. Nimur (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

reply

Replied here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#running_a_c.2B.2B_program). thanks--180.234.38.71 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hubble.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hubble.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a fair-use rationale template for that image: File:Hubble.jpg. Nimur (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hubble.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hubble.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Hubble

I'm sorry, I can't see any discussion on the talk page. In any case, non-free content cannot be used in favour of free content, even if it is of a higher quality. Our deliberately strict non-free content criteria are quite clear that free content must always take precedence, even if the free content has yet to be found. However, in a case like this, where we already have a free image of the subject, it's pretty much black and white. If you disagree, that's fine, but your problem is with the policy, not with me; please do not add the non-free image back into the article in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't actually see the message on my talk page, I assumed you meant the article talk page. If you are concerned that the "free" image has been uploaded under a false license, then perhaps you could nominate it for deletion? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to investigate the exact copyright status of both images, including the original photographer and institution. This is a bit difficult because both photos have been reprinted in thousands of different websites and print sources. Nimur (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm sorry about my rather curt message above, as I say, I hadn't seen your message to me. I disagree that we should use "the higher quality image" necessarily- we should use the smallest amount of copyrighted material possible. As you argue, the pipe image is more useful, but it should certainly be reduced drastically in size, and perhaps cropped down significantly (just face and pipe?) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Before we take any action, can you give me a day or two to try to track some more authoritative copyright information down? I agree that we need to minimize the amount of "encumbered" content, but I'm not sure either image has a currently valid copyright, because I don't know the actual original author/photographer of either image (except that to the best of my current research, both images originated from Mount Wilson). Nimur (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The Year in Review Royal Award Conferred USRD busy at work at FAC	State and national updates Project reports for CA MI MN NE NJ UT WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking to Contact You

Hey Nimur,I'm the one who wrote both the articles about the vacuum and about the Ankitium. I think what I am thinking of is not impossible to develop because I've already found many reasons to believe in it. I've also some other theories on the facts which are yet to be proven. The "TOE" is one of them. I think it could be possible to construct the "TOE" equation. But I may not be able to explain it through the articles only as many things are still unknown to me and need a definite person who could help me. You've asked that why I am unable to research on it. Here's the answer. I'm a boy of just 20 and nobody is believing in me that a boy of my age who is a engineering student could be able to construct it. But I can assure you,if you could arrange a meeting between me and a proper guide who could help me on this things, it may not be going to failure because nothing is impossible in Physics. What I'm telling that may be wrong. But there has a possibility that it may be right. I just want to found whether it could be right or not. If you are interested then contact me through my email-id (E-mail address removed). There you could ask for my cell no also. Being a student,I don't have sufficient money to make an I.S.D call.

One more thing,if you've found possibility to have something true in my words,then contact me as early as possible. I promise you to go to there to complete this research at once you've replied me leaving behind my Engineering college.

Hope that you would be kind enough to check my words at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nthng is imp (talk • contribs)

I have moved your note down here because your previous post over-wrote an earlier message to me (diff). I appreciate your enthusiasm and I hope your studies continue; but I am not able to telephone or meet with you. I recommend that you study hard, excel in the mainstream areas of physics and engineering, and if you have trouble with specific subjects, the Science Reference Desk is always available to help you and others. Don't forget to take full advantages of any local resources available at your school - work with professors and teachers. If you have ideas that aren't being taken seriously, re-think them. Take constructive criticism seriously when it comes from intelligent sources. Aim to progress to bigger and better things by performing to your best capability at every stage of your education. Nimur (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying me. Here goes another interesting topic. Does a string really exist? No,it's not. If we consider that a string is self-vibrating, then a question can be asked. Why does a string vibrate? The charge,mass,energy are created due to the vibration. But as we all know that energy can not be created but can be converted. So,here comes a question that from where does a string gets it energy to vibrate?

Another thing is that is a photon really mass less? I think,no,it's not. Photon has a mass of the range of 10 to the power -57. That's why we consider it as a particle of mass zero.

You've told me that there exists dark energy in vacuum. But,what does hold or carry the energy? Energy can not exist freely. It definitely needs a medium.

One more to go. In black holes why the light can not escaped from it? The escape velocity in the black holes is greater than the velocity of light. That's why the energy of a black hole continuously increases. The energy gets converted into mass and as a result the mass as well as the gravity of a black hole continuously gets increased in a larger way. I know it is hard to prove. But it is not so hard to prove that any kind of elementary particle in our world is created from the photons. I'm definite that it could be proven. Think about it. If these could be proven, no one can stop you from getting a Nobel. I don't want anything but a scholarship as I belong to a lower middle class family. Hope that you would be kind enough to reply me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nthng is imp (talk • contribs)

Please do not delete previous messages from my talk-page; this is the second time you have done that (diff). I think you need to review some history of physics. Many of your ideas are completely incorrect and have been demonstrated false by experiment. Some of your other ideas may have merit, but you are not really presenting them in a convincing way. But whether you are correct or not is unimportant. Wikipedia will not be the place to publish or solicit your ideas. This is an encyclopedia, and we have a very strict policy against publishing original research here. Nor is this the proper forum for you to seek scholarships; my talk-page is intended to help me communicate with other encyclopedia editors to improve Wikipedia. You should pursue standard channels, apply for university-level programs in physics and mathematics, and prove your ideas in an appropriate forum. I think you will have a hard time proving that a photon has a mass, and you will have a very hard time proving that energy requires a medium to propagate in. These ideas are not correct; this has been convincingly shown via theory and experiment. If you engage in a physics program, you need to be able to understand and learn from previous scientific knowledge, and synthesize new knowledge - but trying to contradict established fact is not going to get you far. Let me re-emphasize: I am not able to telephone you, meet with you, or help you find scholarships. If you need assistance locating specific resources, the reference desk may be able to refer you to programs that you can pursue. Nimur (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't understand before what you are trying to telling me. I'm going mad because I've sent it to W.N.A.R. before. But no one reply me. To prove the corresponding mass of a photon you can use this equation. hv=E=m(c)2. Here you can find that the corresponding mass of a photon of a very negligible term. But it definitely exists. I'm sorry once again to disappoint you. It won't be again I promise. I'm going mad as no one is believing in me. I know it is hard to believe. But all of our convention has started with the convention of holding the mass,charge and energy. No one has tried to find out from where does it created from. Hope that you could understand it. At least tell me from where does I can get help to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.70.32 (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I regret to tell you that you are applying mass-energy equivalence incorrectly. You should start by reading our photon article, and read about experiments to check the mass of the photon. I recommend that you continue studying to develop a solid background in modern electrodynamics. There's hardly any substitute for the Jackson textbook on classical electrodynamics. (In fact, Chapter 1 has an entire section treating "The Inverse Square Law, or, The Mass of the Photon"). After you've demonstrated a mastery of that theoretical treatment, you should be prepared to theoretically comprehend the implications of your physical assertions. And, you will be able to understand why your current hypotheses are incorrect. At present, I do not think you are able to formally prove your physics ideas in a convincing way. Nor do you seem to be correctly applying classical or quantum theories. Don't be discouraged - this is hard stuff - but don't get ahead of yourself. Study the basics first, work your way up, master the theory, and then try to expand it (or even, possibly, to correct it). Nimur (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

.CO registry logo

Hi!

I've uploaded the .CO registry logo a couple of times but you deeted it. I don't undestrand why since other TLD's such as .ME have it and within the TLD infobox there is a space for it.

I think having the logo visible is not part of an advertising campaign, all brands (such as coca cola) have their logos visible on their pages and this is merely to allow the visitors to associate the graphic image with the brand.

Best, Santiago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagorodriguezortiz (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

one final offer

I can vnc into your desktop (or a VM if you can set it up! it doesn't have to be your real desktop) and be on skype, and talk you through, for the twenty minutes, into what it takes to get this done. This takes "extreme programming" to a new level. Look, I already have a game plan,, I'm just not a Unix hacker. You want to do this or what? This would be super, super-fast, especially if you already know Perl or another scripting language and how gpg works... The idea of having someone work you through a hack on skype and while VNC'd into your development VM is the most interesting offer you'll ever get in your life, I'll guarantee you that! Just say "ok". You'll not have a better cocktail story. 109.128.192.218 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not permit random people who contact me via Wikipedia to access my computer resources; my computers are very valuable to me, and all my spare resources are currently processing digital images of Jupiter that I photographed in October (the superresolution program I wrote takes a very long time to run, so I can't set up a DMZ for you this month, or ever). Why don't you just submit a patch file for your favorite Bittorrent client to Sourceforge? Regarding my cocktail stories, I have plenty of more interesting stories than "the time I gave somebody on the internet permission to access my computer." For example, you can read all about the time I built a moon rocket, and designed the computer and wrote the software; or the time I got stranded in a blizzard on a remote Alaskan island and had to crawl underneath a building to solder together a 36-bit digital radio connector in the dark on account of a bad Windows UART driver. If we restrict ourselves only to cocktail stories related to interesting offers for Unix software I have personally authored, I can tell you about the time Communists tried to purchase my seismic imaging technology implementation for use in the deep water of the East China Sea, but despite their fantastic offer of financial compensation, I turned the offer down for ethical reasons. Or, the time I was interrogated by Israeli agents who wanted to know every detail of the noise-reduction software algorithm I implemented - they made, shall we say, an "offer I couldn't refuse." If you seek to commission my programming services, you are in competition with some of the world's largest and wealthiest corporations and research institutions; I think you will not be able to provide me with a financial incentive that can possibly sway me. Currently, I am only participating on projects that I find personally interesting; and with due respect, you seem to seriously underestimate exactly how interesting my prior "extreme-programming" software offers have been so far. Nimur (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy, do you have that final sentence right! With experience like that, this 20 minute project is not for you after all. Unfortunately, everything that I have that would be of interest to you is, not to put too fine a point on it, impossible. Thanks for all your time all the same! 109.128.192.218 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I will say this. Obviously if a project takes 20 minutes, it can only be a hack, and not of major importance. I can't think of one important breakthrough that was made in twenty minutes, and no project anyone ever comes to you with that is of any importance whatsoever will take twenty minutes. So, I don't feel bad about giving you a less than world-changing prospects. 109.128.192.218 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kj650

There are similarities between User:Tomjohnson357 and User:Kj650. I have lodged a report about sockpuppetry involving these two User names. See HERE. Dolphin (t) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RD/S The Structured Vacuum question

Hi Nimur. I thought that the section is old enough that you might not have noticed my[question about The Structured Vacuum? Have you read far enough to form an opinion? -- 110.164.230.43 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the desk. Briefly, I'm sure the subject has evolved, but the book is still a fun read and seems pretty consistent with modern physical theory anyway. Nimur (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Thank you! I enjoy the Ref Desks, I learn a lot just by being there. Most interesting to me is hearing all the different ways people phrase questions about science - it's a really good insight into the way different people conceive of the raw concepts - a little glimpse into the way they were educated, what books have shaped their viewpoints, how they have managed to learn complex ideas with or without formal education (or education that has been very different from mine)... Nimur (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)