| Revision as of 01:50, 23 November 2005 editLethe (talk | contribs)Administrators11,152 edits I remember you← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:57, 1 December 2005 edit undoFresheneesz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,055 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | '''LAST WIPED (on the date next to my name) - ] 07:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)''' | ||
| ==Archive== | ==Archive== | ||
| View the archive of ] | View the archive of ] | ||
| ==Talk below== | ==Talk below== | ||
| == Images == | |||
| ::How did you upload an image without clicking on the upload link?? And how does the licensing of the image affect whether you can upload or not? — Omegatron 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: - Well.. I didn't.. I created new pages with new files by using the "Upload file" link in the toolbox. But many image pages have an "Upload new version of this file" link that allows you to directly update the file without any doubts. ] 02:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aha! I never saw that link before. Since my images are on ], you'd have to go to the Commons description page first, and then you will see that link. — ] 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::: - alright, I actually still don't see that link. For example at ] theres an "edit this file in an external application" link - but it just allows you to DL something (.. i dunno if its actually the file). The link I was talking about goes directly to an upload page with the file name already put in for you so that you know its replacing the correct file. ] 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmmm... I see "Upload a new version of this file" immediately above that link. I don't know. | |||
| :::::The "Upload file" link always works, regardless. — ] 14:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| - I think you have the link no matter what if you are the original uploader. But try going onto the picture's page without logging on. ] 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, you're right. I don't know. I always just use the regular upload link. — ] 19:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == 2nd law vandalism == | |||
| I have to go now, so please watch over the page. Don't worry about the "3 reverts rule" - it only applies for non-vandalism. If that guy keeps adding that flawed paragraph, just hit revert. :) ] 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If worse comes to the worst, you can always find an admin to lock the page and ban that IP. I don't know any personally, but there's bound to be a list somewhere. Try ]? ] 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : ] is even better as a place to announce vandals. Yes, if vandalism is persistent, it definitely must be announced there. ] (]) 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ideal gas law == | |||
| Alright, this is becoming totally ridiculous - how can you possibly that the ideal gas law is an approximation ''to an ideal gas''??? It's true that it is an approximation to ''real gasses'' but that is '''not''' what that formula on the page is about! Please stop editing pages that you do not understand! Talk about it on the discussion page if it's that big of a deal. - ] 05:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm sorry - I'll stop editing things that are unorthodox. But to answer your question, the ideal gas law is never used to find out things about an ideal gas - those don't exist. I will definately back off this page - cause i'm pissing people off. And I suppose my edit is more about the way the gas laws should be taught - and not their actual meaning. I'll quit messing with stuff like this. ] 06:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, sometimes "orthodox" approaches can suck, however in this case it's made really clear that the ideal gas is a theoretical approximation to real life - better approximations are mentioned. - ] 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Entropy/Disorder == | |||
| Hello Fresheneesz. First let me say that I am absolutely in support of the WikiData idea (it is always good to question other's data processing methods, I've seen... some interesting data processing in my time on the ] mission. Anyways, I wanted to let you know that your edits to articles involving entropy seem rather misguided. It's really a very complex part of modern physics (and not always terribly easy for individuals to understand, even with a physics degree). I think for pages like that, the majority of editing affecting content (i.e. not typographical or structural) really should be performed by individuals with credentials in the subject (and familiarity). If you feel that there's something significant missing or incorrect on these articles, I would suggest using the talk pages, it is a much better approach IMHO because then if (as in this case) your ideas don't line up with accepted modern physics, someone there can explain why. | |||
| Science is never a finished process and we have much to learn in the years ahead, but Misplaced Pages is committed to reflecting the current consensus of scientific thought on any matter, "right" or "wrong." - ] 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I apologize I'm on travel for the holidays for the next week so I'm a bit sporadic. I must admit that I am very much in disagreement with you about how best to present Entropy etc... I have several textbooks on the subject I plan ton consult in the next few days (I do need a refresher course on such thing) but I believe that it is very correct to state that entropy is, above and beyond anything else, a measurement of information content of a physical system. Yes, this is related to various free energies etc, however that is more of a "side effect" than anything else. This definition is nice for many reasons, however my favorite would be that it is unitless (well, I guess you could say it's in "bits" but that seems to be the basic unit of information in information theory). I think that defining it in terms of free energy is not only confusing (entropy is only one variable in determination of how much energy can be extracted from a system... carnot limits etc also apply). I don't have time at the moment to disect your edits (I'll get to that later) but, certainly you understand that even a maximally disorded system can have energy extracted from it with the use of a low temperature sink. I think this makes some of your edits rather erroneous (or at best, highly misleading). I also really do not see the point of tying everything back to "free energy" - sure it may be more "intuitive" for some at first, however it really hampers any actual use of the concept, as it's certainly not mathematically intuitive, and it has tenuous connections at best to micro statistical mechanics. I see you've been doing some edits on the disorder page, and I think it'd be best to define entropy in terms of information content of a system with links to that page, and free energy (where appropriate, rather than relentlessly). - ] 07:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, entropy "exists" just as much as any other theoretical entity (say, an electron) "exists" - we can use the idea of this entity to predict the physical universe. No known "macroscopic" system has ever repeatably/reliably been observed to violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, so I do not see anything wrong with the concept. Of course, as systems become smaller, the second law of thermodynamics begins to break down - interestingly enough, this also happens as one's time scale goes up - if a nonexpanding universe lasted forever, it would spontaneously reorganize itself and infinite number of times, in every possible configuration, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This is, however, so incredibly unlikely during any human lifetime that I would not mind saying it is "impossible" because it's more likely that you would be struck by lightning, than for you to observe this kind of reversal on a macroscopic scale. | |||
| :: RE your comments about possible macroscopic violations of thermodynamics by humans, there are no scientifically accepted ways of doing this, even in theory. Certain forms of FTL or time travel (basically the same thing) are considered more plausible in theory than any "perpetual motion"/"free energy" (I mean energy for free, not the technical term in this case) machine anyone has ever devised. It is true that biological processes (such as evolution, on a large scale, or simple biological growth) can ''locally'' reduce entropy, but this is at the cost of increased entropy in other parts of the universe (such that the total is nondecreasing). | |||
| :: As for pedagogical introduction, it's true that S is intimately related with free energy, however that quantity already has its own designation. I firmly believe that entropy is best described in the information content of a system (minimum number of bits required to reconstruct a system precisely). I'm not sure that I agree with the order in which these two concepts are introduced in the article is the best - however this could simply be my own bias towards statistical mechanics (which is a much more accurate model of reality than thermodynamics). I think I'll mention this on the talk page, as I don't feel comfortable making sweeping changes to such an important article on this kind of thing myself. | |||
| :: Incidentally I think there is a bit too much confidence in physical "laws" - newton's laws of motion were not only completely "wrong" in their ideas, but all of modern physics can be done without any notion of explicit forces (energies can be used instead, see ] if you are unfamiliar with this). Mass is not a constant, even for the constituent particles of an object, momentum is quantized and uncertain, forces are noninstantaneous. Interestingly enough, ], a professor at Cornell University (my alma mater) once told me that he thought that "conservation of momentum is a silly law anyways," in response to my accusations that one of his pet theories violated it. Interestingly enough, though, he firmly believed in the second law of thermodynamics, as being far superior and a more fundamental truth. | |||
| :: I guess in closing I should thank you for all the attention you've paid to various articles (some of your edits seemed to be quite good), however I would caution that making sweeping changes to fundamental articles without any discussion is probably a good way to get reverted. I think that any time you see something that's a sincere issue in an article, you should probably put something up at the talk pages... some people tend to be rather protective of these pages, and the subject matter is ''very'' difficult and contains many subtle issues. I have a bachelors degree in physics from a decent school, but I don't dare change any of these pages without consulting a textbook... Mathematics is such a precise language, and physics such a precise study that even small errors can have profound implications (the ] confused me for several years as a schoolkid) so the stakes are very high. I do think that a lot of these pages could use some overhauling (especially the more obscure pages) and copyediting never hurts :) Cheers - ] 00:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What a long comment, who is going to read all of that? :) ] (]) 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :::: This is Misplaced Pages. Nothing is truly yours. Anybody writing here has to have some pity on the third-party curious eye who dies to know everything, unless it is too big a message as the one above. ] (]) 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Misplaced Pages is one of the longest collections of knowledge ever conceived in the history of mankind. If you do not like reading things that are long, I am sure there are much more concise pages on the internet. This topic is nontrivial, and this debate is something I think is a fundamental problem with wikipedia - truth is NOT a democracy. Some people know more than others, and while they *should* be given more weight, right now they aren't. I think someone with a bachelor's degree in the subject should have more weight than someone who is an armchair physicist or whatnot, and someone with higher education (masters/PhD) moreso, ending at an individual who does active research in the field. To counterbalance this, wikipedia has tried to encourage the use of references, but this still assumes that people know which references are good and correct, and know also how to properly interpret them. Fresheneesz does not like to provide refrences (and believe me I understand, they can be difficult to track down), and I think this is one of the main causes of this issue. | |||
| ::::: Fresheneesz, I suggest that you adhere to wikipedia policy and be willing to back up any and all changes with references if disputed. You cannot honestly expect millions of internet users to take just your word on something without solid reference or undisputed credentials! I think you are onto something with saying that the E=mc^2 equation is confusing, but the proper way to resolve that is through discussion, not ''vigilante'' edits. Also, it's important to not worry so much if you get reverted - the checks and balances in wikipedia are such that if you are in the right, it is statistically likely that someone else will undo those reverts, or support you in discussion. It is unlikely that you know something about this subject that no one else on wikipedia knows (and I am sure a lot of people are watching that page). I think that it is good for you to find areas of the physics articles that are confusing - indeed I think you are very much in the prime target audience for such articles, as you are very familiar with terminology etc. I understand what you mean about being upset by being taught many approximations for things, I feel similarly, however there are valid pedagogical reasons for this, and there is a balance between providing an accessible reference and being pedantically correct. | |||
| ::::: Most of science is most accurately described by mathematics, as it tends to be devoid of the ambiguity inherent in natural languages, but for pedagogical reasons this is not the best way to present new material. I really do think that enough people disagree with you about these edits that you should understand that you require hefty references to convince everyone that you are in the right on these issues. Until and unless these are provided, you should expect that your contributions are being closely monitored and will be reverted when they reduce the factual accuracy or clarity of any science article. - ] 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| - I understand your frustration at edits without references. However, certain edits are edits where references are N/A. For example, organization edits. Many of my edits have to do with organization, and not adding information. Some organizations provide more information than others, but simply because of the way the information is written - not the amount of information. For example, on the operational amplifier applications - I reorganized the page to underscore that the inverting and non-inverting amplifiers are simplifications of the differential amplifier circuit. I inputted no new information - however I reorganized it so that people reading about it would retain *more* information than they would have previously. | |||
| - You are right that wikipedia's main problem is that *anyone* can edit. However, without this "problem" - wikipedia wouldn't exist. People only edit wikipedia when they think something can be improved (not counting pure vandals), and thus if the article is completely unambiguous and does not contradict other information - as it shouldn't - then users will stop editing. Credentials are nice - but credentials don't prove you know everything, and lack of credentials isn't proof enough to say that one isn't fluent in a subject. I'm not worried about my edits being reverted, but I will work with the editors of pages to work my edits into the page in a fasion accpetable to everyone. | |||
| - I would say that most of my edits are reorganizing - or are edits whos correctness is easily validated (that is not to say that they wouldn't be controversial). I will try harder to find references to my edits - but in many cases, references are scarse, and the editors of a page actually need to *think* in order to get an article right. | |||
| ] 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Relativistic Mass edit == | |||
| I guess in my mind I didn't "trash" your edits, as they will always be available in the history. I invite you to re-edit them (to be more concise and less POV) and post on the talk page so you can get some feedback, so that we don't get another round of revert wars. I think you had some reasonable sources (for something that's a consensus thing, it may, unfortunately require a few more that are more authoritative) so... I think there's a valid discussion that can be had about the subject. Unfortunately I didn't have time last night (and really don't have time right now) to make the required edits, and it's more important to me to have less information in an article than to have information that's incorrect or POV (although I do have some objections to wikipedia's NPOV philosophy, I try and follow it). - ] 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I remember you == | == I remember you == | ||
Revision as of 07:57, 1 December 2005
LAST WIPED (on the date next to my name) - Fresheneesz 07:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Archive
View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz(archive)
Talk below
I remember you
I think I vaguely remember someone with your name at sciforums. -lethe 01:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)