Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 26 July 2022

July 2022

Please do not make Misplaced Pages articles more difficult to read by introducing terminology that is used rarely, if at all, in reliable sources, as you did repeatedly at "International System of Units". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Using incorrect terminology is the confusing thing. The speed of light is not a constant; if it were the entire field of optics would not exist. Using the correct terminology can lead people to learning something new, instead of giving them the wrong concept. Marrew (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus. It is not uncommon to refer to more complicated concepts with short phrases that do not contain, within the phrase, all the nuances. The phrase "speed of light" is commonly used in the scientific literature as a reference to the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum. The phrase "speed of causality" is rare and will not be understood by most readers. Continued editing against consensus will be reported to administrators for appropriate resolution.

That "speed of light" is used to refer to a more nuanced meaning is proven in one of the sources cited in the article:

International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2019-05-20), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (9th ed.), ISBN 978-92-822-2272-0, archived from the original on 18 October 2021

That publication, in its preface on page 122 states

Among them are fundamental constants of nature such as the Planck constant and the speed of light, so that the definitions are based on and represent our present understanding of the laws of physics.

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The speed of light is simply not a constant, and referring to it as such is MORE confusing to people who for example, might be studying optics, an entire field based on the fact that the speed of light is not a constant. Using the correct language IS NOT adding confusion, it is adding specificity and an opportunity to learn something new. Just because the people think the wrong phrase should go here, does not make it correct. The C literally stands for causality. Go ahead and report this, please, it should be corrected, imho. Marrew (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Having it listed as the speed of causality rather than the erroneous speed of light makes it so that when the hyperlink is clicked it still goes to the article on the speed of light, only it automatically scrolls down to the more appropriate section of the article titled: Upper limit on speeds. This makes it more clear, and easier to understand for all fields. Marrew (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Is "speed of light" misleading? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Marrew! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of International System of Units several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:International System of Units, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The ones with the impulse to undo edits are the ones arguing for a more confusing, less specific version which is literally wrong. C does not stand for light, nor the speed of it. It literally stands for causality. Marrew (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

c comes from the latin celeritas, it does not stand for causality.

And since you can't use the talk page, I've reported you for WP:3RR violations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)