User talk:PhyllisS

I moved enjambment down to a subpage of talk:enjambment. Can you clarify the example? --Ed Poor Talk 16:14, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks, but you have to stop. I've found serious errors in 2 out of 2 articles you started, which I checked. --Ed Poor Talk 16:28, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Hurray for Princeton

Princeton certainly made the right choice. If you're planning on a physics major look up Liz Jensen. She was an undergrad physics major (at Smith) and is now a grad student at Princeton in aerospace engineering.RJJensen 19:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Hey Phyllis! So this is you?? And congrats on Princeton! AddisonDM 19:31, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

HURRAY for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering! Liz is back too; all the 2nd year grad students are studying for their comprehensive exams in January. It's a big deal. :) 01:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Promotion

Aww, thanks so much! I am very excited. :-) PhyllisS 22:45, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Thank the Lord, I have spell checker built into Firefox! Congrats :D --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:27, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Sharp spell checker

Yes, thank God for FF, and PhyllisS who picked out Mosiac from Mosaic (as in law)!Daniel1212 16:58, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Conjugate base / acid

Can you explain why you completely changed both Conjugate base and Conjugate acid? I was able to understand them almost completely, but now, I can't understand a lick.

I can see that you want to provide a sort of "mastery" knowledge to each article, but "HX" terms really throw me off--as it would to any person new to the topics. Maybe you combine the content of the previous article with your knowledge instead of transforming it into something new.

Just a suggestion from a non-physics major. Thank you. --ɹǝlƃǝız ɹǝdoʇsıɹɥɔ 21:54, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Sorry about that; I'll continue to work on them today to make them more clear. I thought the original definition was a little misleading. Firstly, the original didn't make clear that conjugate acid/bases occur in pairs, i.e. it sounded like NH_4+ is a conjugate acid in of itself, when really it is a conjugate acid OF NH_3. Secondly, the article was wrong - it referred to NH_4+ as a conjugate base, when it is obviously a conjugate acid.

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'll work on it right now. PhyllisS 10:31, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Ahh. I did not notice that error. It has been a while since I was forced to do chem. Thanks, PhyllisS. --ɹǝlƃǝız ɹǝdoʇsıɹɥɔ 00:34, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Einstein

I see you put this on the Theory of relativity page. I am going to dispute that. "Special Relativity was almost solely developed by Albert Einstein, but had minor contributions from Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, and Hermann Minkowski". RSchlafly 22:04, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to. I put that up before you enlightened me on Poincaré's wonderful contributions. PhyllisS 00:37, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Forgot other account username and pass, delete this account if it's a problem, thanks!

AdamDavid 07:30, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Things we don't do at Conservapedia

We don't point out people's spelling errors on talk pages. Thank you. And sorry again for earlier today. ~ JonG ~ 15:14, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I can point out spelling errors wherever I please. :P PhyllisS 22:50, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

exact (differential) equation

While looking through recent mathematical changes (a hobby of mine) I came across your exact equation article. I have a few comments on improving it.

The first thing that caught my attention was the title. "Exact equation"? Aren't all equations exact? This is mathematics, after all! The problem is that "exact" has a very specialized meaning in this context. I would suggest renaming the page to "exact differential equation".

You need to motivate this with an example!!! And you need to say something like

"The solution is φ = constant, where φ is determined by integrating M and N." I believe the integration is something like

$\phi(t, y) = \int_0^t M(s, 0) ds + \int_0^y N(t, s) ds$

but I'm not sure I have it right. Please check that.

Go through the example to find φ by integrating, then check that

$\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = M$

and

$\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} = N$

and that any function φ = some constant, when turned into the corresponding dy/dt, satisfies the original equation. Be sure to emphasize that one must check first that

$\frac{\partial M}{\partial y} = \frac{\partial N}{\partial t}$

(That's the condition for "exactness" of the differential form M dt + N dy.)

And take out phrases like "only write once in the combined expression" and "plug into the quadratic formula" unless you give examples of the combined expression and the quadratic equation that arises.

Finally, you can make equations look like big-as-life equations by putting a "\," at the end, just before the closing [/itex]. See Tips_for_writing_math_and_science_articles for more info.

, SamHB 09:33, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

SamHB: Thank you so, so much for your comments! You're absolutely right; my page was not up to par, and I was wondering how to better explain exact differential equations (and make my equations larger!) Also, that is a good hobby. My hobby is studying physics/quantum mechanics/relativity, even though I am a mechanical engineer by trade. :-D PhyllisS 00:55, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Effects of Relativity and the GPS

You introduced the following quote on Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity: The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

Have you read the article GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti? I don't think that it means what you think it means :-)

I elaborated on this here, here and here.

I'd like to get your input on this!

RonLar 08:46, 16 August 2010 (EDT)