Talk:Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime

message: I didn't like some of your formatting changed, Mpatel.  For starters, the Manual of style suggests (and I agree) that we shouldn't start a sentence with a math symbol (you start one clause with a *).  Also, I really don't like inline tex, so I'm changing that back.  Finally, you changed the equation from *d*F = j to d*F = *j.  As far as I can tell, one of these equations must be wrong by a minus sign, since *2=–1 on two forms in any spacetime with signature 1.  I thought that the first equation was the proper one, but I'm not positive.  I guess I'd like to get straight on that. -lethe talk [ +] 17:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting 

message: Latin indexes are, by convention, only used spatial dimensions (x,y,z). Greek indexes conventionally run over all spacetime dimensions (t,x,y,z). So, I'm going to change latin indexes to greek where applicable (which is pretty much everywhere).  
Well.caffeinated 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index naming 

message: the first two things that that i looked for when first encountered this article was: 1) derivation of the curved maxwell equations from the vacuum maxwell equations...via covariant derivatives; and 2) a comparison of the curved maxwell equations to the einstein field equations. i don't understand why all the other stuff in the article is more relevant, am i missing the point of this article with these expectations? Henry Delforn (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to this, my thoughts exactly.  Thanks to this link for providing that information, which originally comes from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. 197.2.217.148 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the summary section, "Despite the use of partial derivatives, these equations are invariant under arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformations. Thus if one replaced the partial derivatives with covariant derivatives, the extra terms thereby introduced would cancel out.". JRSpriggs (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing something?? 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Ozob (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Should a reference to KK theory be made in this article? I don't know much about KK theory, but it unifies GR and EM, so it seems logical to me to have it here. Or is it not 'Maxwell's equations'? Yodo9000 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaluza-Klein theory