Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(viii) Admins' overriding principle should be to keep the decks clear for ''open discussion'' by insisting upon discussion of <u>content</u>, and rules should be enforced to catalyze ''diversity of opinion'', especially in the presence of vocal support for a particular view. ] should be kept in mind. ] (]) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(viii) Admins' overriding principle should be to keep the decks clear for ''open discussion'' by insisting upon discussion of <u>content</u>, and rules should be enforced to catalyze ''diversity of opinion'', especially in the presence of vocal support for a particular view. ] should be kept in mind. ] (]) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
► … ♫ … ◄
:Were you planning on starting another project where these commandments might apply? They certainly don't all square with policy around here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
:Were you planning on starting another project where these commandments might apply? They certainly don't all square with policy around here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
::They are desiderata; they are not followed, at least not always, but it would be better if they were. ] (]) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
::They are desiderata; they are not followed, at least not always, but it would be better if they were. ] (]) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:26, 27 October 2009
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've now started a section on the historical development of the modern conception of centrifugal force in that article. I am by no means an expert in the history of science, and I'm unsure about how the references I've cited hold together: I'd greatly appreciate it if you could please review the material I have added so far? There appears to be significant work on this topic by Domenico Bertoloni Meli (for example, , ), however, most of the interesting papers on this subject are behind a paywall and inaccessible to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fictitious force wiki is wrong about planetary motion and Euler forces
Euler forces are tangential forces causing α = dω/dt? These don't go away in a constantly rotating frame-- they stay the same, since the acceleration of the particle is the same in either frame (just as in the linear case where acceleration is the same if you switch to a different inertial frame at a different linear velocity). Euler forces only appear as ficticious forces if you're in a frame with accelerated rotation rate where α = non-zero. But that's not the setup we carefully made for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces where ω is constant and dω/dt = α = 0. So in a way, the Euler forces are a different animal, and we really have to decide if we're going to stay fixed to a coordinate system or fixed on a rotating object which may not be rotating with a fixed rate. The planetary case is interesting: the Euler force is zero there, NOT because of the fact that the revolution rate doesn't change (as it states falsely in the fictious force Wiki)-- because the revolution rate of a planet DOES change for eliptical orbits! Instead, Mr. Tombe's "law of areal velocity" per Kepler kicks in (a consequence of angular momentum preservation) which causes r to decrease as ω increases, so the product stays constant and thus the Euler term stays zero even IF dω/dt is not zero: this is perhaps what confused Mr. Tombe (he as thinking about Euler forces and calling them Coriolis forces; most of what he said about one was true for the other!). Euler force = 0 even with variable rotation, and this happens any time the force is purely central, as with planets and no drag, or (say) when a skater pulls in her arms, etc. All again because of conservation of angular momentum in a system with no external angular momentum-changing influences. SBHarris21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Steven: I find your remarks confusing. Marsden provides a formula for the Euler force for a rotating frame as mr ×dω / dt, which certainly vanishes for a constant rate of rotation, not supporting your lead sentence. Then a sentence or so later, you seem to agree with this remark. What are you trying to say here? Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles about Dynamics
I've noticed that you are working a lot on the Kinematics article. A few months ago I compiled a list of all (maybe there are more) articles related to Dynamics. This list is located in the talk page of the Dynamics article. I thought this list would be useful for you if you are planning on working on more articles related to Kinematics. Some of those articles need to be merged. I would like to work on some of these articles but my focus right now is on other topics. Cheers!!! Sanpaz (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
coriolis diagram
I reverted again. Diagram is wrong. Best not to advise others to "take time to think about the issue" -- it assumes bad faith. Rracecarr (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Improved simulation methods for loop gain (return ratio)
I noticed your interest in electronic feedback, so I thought you might be interested to learn about two improved simulation methods for loop gain (or return ratio, as you prefer to call it), which I present on my webpage http://www.geocities.com/frank_wiedmann/loopgain.html. The method developed by Michael Tian is basically an improved version of Middlebrook's method from 1975. Middlebrook's General Feedback Theorem is very closely related to the "Asymptotic gain model" entry on Misplaced Pages. Regarding the issue of loop gain versus return ratio, you can find some comments from me at http://www.designers-guide.org/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1124688329.
In this edit, are you sincerely asking whether you should do some math, or is your intent to be sarcastic and insulting to the other editors? Please beware that it is very easily interpreted as the latter, and people may take offense. --PeR (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know: it is for lab experiments and simulations. Is a cyclotron lab equipment? I guess the real question is whether this material fits best here, or would be more easily found elsewhere. Any suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to Tide. Possibly I was too impulsive, so I'll just explain myself and you can rerevert if you really know what you're talking about. The centrifugal force explanation has been debated extensively on the Talk page. I was not involved in that discussion, but it appears that the centrifugal-version lost out. The only other mention of centrifugal in the article is a link explaining why its the wrong way to explain tides. As the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, it should be consistent with the main body. Spiel496 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh... you edit faster than I do. I understand your point; the article is not so well referenced. Please do what you can to make the article self-consistent, though. Spiel496 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, when centrifugal force is used to explain a phenomenon then there is also a valid alternative which does not use centrifugal force. Sometimes, one is much clearer than the other. I'm kind of on the fence as far as tides are concerned. Best of luck... Spiel496 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Centrifugal force and precession
Brews, I do know that precession can be (and typically is) a rotation about a rotating axis. Sorry for my ambiguous edit summary. But the picture you added showed a rotation about a fixed vertical axis (i.e. a precession with same angular velocity as the rotation about the "south-north" axis of the object). Besides that, the example about precession is too difficult to understand for an introduction about centrifugal force (because people thinks that the instantaneous axis of rotation is the "south-north" axis, which is never true). A much better example about rotation about a non-fixed axis was about the "particle along S-shaped trajectory".
However, I fail to understand the reason why you want to talk about rigid bodies and Newton-Euler equations in the introduction. I suggest to open a new section at the end of the article about this topic. But it would just say that:
either you study the motion of the body CM, and in this case centrifugal force is computed as if the body were a point mass, or
you study the motion of a particle in the rigid body which does not coincide with the CM; then you just compute the kinematics of that particle, then you again use the formula for particles.
I mean, the same formulas for centrifugal force as those you use for particles can be applied to rigid bodies. IMO, this is not something worth mention in the introduction. By the way, I guess you agree that inertial couples (appearing together with fictitious forces in adjusted Newton-Euler equations used within non-inertial frames) definitely do not belong in this article! Paolo.dL (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Brews, believe me, I have a high esteem for you. I only think that you should clean up your edits on A-class articles, before saving or immediately after saving, and should read with more attention comments on talk pages before answering.
Please read with attention our discussion. I will do the same. It will take some time. Let's both take some time before engulfing the discussion with other useless statements. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Moon article image size
Are you are aware that personal image preferences can be set under "my preferences" at the top of this page? Your forced image sizes were causing the image to go over the top of writing in the article from my persepective.Asher196 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I am too busy right now to read an article with attention. I just quickly edited some articles that I browsed to find information, not with the intention to edit. But I hope I'll find the time in the future to edit frame of reference and centrifugal force. Just one suggestion for you: remove the note about frame of reference from centrifugal force. It is not needed there, and it makes the article messy and unfocused. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm wondering where you came up with this definition. 60 years of space travel do rarely justify the term archaeology, do they? Also, what is there to find other than space junk that is already known? De728631 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Still, I find the term a bit weird. Can you provide references to read up on this? Because from scratch, I'd rather associate remote sensing with this. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi: I am working with an expert in this field, who will provide the meat of the article. My role here is just to introduce Misplaced Pages and get them started. 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, that should become interesting. I moved the page to Space archaeology though, with the correct spelling. This "archeology" was merely a typo in the Hopkins newsletter heading - and later on they also used the right spelling. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Groups
Hi,
thanks for your recent interesting edit to Group (mathematics) (which I moved to the text body). As you also seem to be an image professional, could you think of a way that shows graphically the effect/presence of a group in this band structure stuff you mentioned? In the b.s. article, there are some images, but none of them jumps right into my eye w.r.t. to groups ( is something, but without knowing what goes on, it is hard to grasp). Having something in this direction would be a nice addition to the groups article (we could replace one of the symmetric molecules by this, for this is a bit repetitive). Thank you for your help, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's me again. I'm impressed by your contributions to the group article. However, I'm not sure whether the length and level of explanation is appropriate in an article like this. Pieces like "accompanied by a so-called soft phonon mode, a vibrational lattice mode that goes to zero frequency at the transition" are on the one hand difficult to understand, and, as far as I can tell from reading just this, unrelated to groups. Perhaps you might consider putting most of the explanation to the symmetry or molecular symmetry pages? Otherwise I may do so at some point. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on Kinetics
Thanks for the rework. It's so much more readable now. Can you lend a hand on Dynamics page, too? Even though the word "dynamics" is still used widely, it's no longer a branch of study, just like kinetics. I'm thinking that after clean-up, it makes sense to merge them. Sillyvalley (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Analytical dynamics, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Dynamics (physics). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You feel for it to review me, if you got the time to do so. It might be just a bold question, and I am not expecting a positive reaction, but I really need someone to do so. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Centrifugal Force
Brews, first I'd like to thank you for supporting my unblock request. But since I won't be coming back in again, I want to take this opportunity to explain to you where I think that you are going wrong.
Centrifugal force is one single topic. It can be described in the most simple terms as the outward radial force that is associated with rotation.
It crops up in many scenarios. The classical mechanics topic 'rotating frames of reference' is only one such scenario.
I don't see how you can see it any differently. You showed a much greater ability to comprehend matters on the electromagnetism articles. I don't know what happened to you when you came over to the centrifugal force page. One big difference of course was that there were no biased referees on the electromagnetism pages. My own belief is that you were swayed by this factor and that you were hence too willing to buy into the philosophy that centrifugal force is something that only occurs in rotating frames of reference. I know that you were genuinely trying to learn about the subject. But you were writing as you were learning. It's been as if you were learning on the job. And in my opinion you were being taught very badly by those around you.
My advice to you is to try and listen more carefully to what Fugal is telling you. He knows what he is talking about. 81.152.111.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC).
Vector space graphic
Hi Brews, thanks for your work on vector space. I will also join in now with more content. Since you seem to be a graphic expert (among other things), I wonder whether you could help with the following (I'm a bloody idiot with Inkscape and so on, which is why I ask you): I think a graphic showing a vector bundle would be nice. More concretely I have in mind the Möbius strip, which is a line bundle over the circle. The image should show the circle along with the M. str. and, this would be great, "zooming" in a small region and exhibiting the product structure of a little piece of the circle times the line. Could you do that? Cheers Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Centrifugal force (planar motion)
I think it may be a good idea to save the article on your hard disk and then rewrite it a bit to make it slightly more general. The title could be changed, you don't have to mention "centrifugal force", you could perhaps call it "Classical mechanics in general coordinates".
Looks good! I redirected the article I mentioned above to your article "Mechanics of planar particle motion".
In the Lagrangian methods section, one could also write about imposing the constraint that a particle move along some curve using (time dependent) Lagrange multipliers and then mention the relation between the Lagrange multiplier and the normal force. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Lagrange multiplier and the normal force
I think this can be found in most textbooks. I learned it from college notes at university, so I can't give you a specific ref. right now. This is not so important if a derivation from first principles is given. What matters is that statements in Misplaced Pages are verifiable.
So, a mathematical derivation can serve as the verification of a statement.
Making the derivation itself verifiable by giving a ref. to the literature is then besides the point because we are aiming at readers who can understand the derivation so they would be able to see that it is correct or false. Of course, when we take a derivation from a book, then we should give the ref. to that book.
Then, because we don't need to closely follow any textbooks, we have a lot of freedom to adapt the derivation to the needs of the reader of the wiki article. I have contributed to some thermodynamics articles in this style, see e.g. Fundamental thermodynamic relation and Helmholtz free energy. The derivations there are similar to what you can find in books like the one by F. Reif, my old college notes and my own notes.
The thermodynamics articles contained many elementary mistakes before I started to edit them. I still don't understand how such elementary errors could have remained in these articles for many years. I think that the wiki practice of sourcing statements could be have contributed to this. Erroneous statements were attributed to some source (in some case the source was a clone of the same wiki article) and then no one bothered to check. So, I decided that it may be better to give derivatons from first principles and not even bother to source them so that they will be scrutinized more. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Derivations and verifiability
This seems to be an ongoing discussion at the policy pages, see e.g. here.
I also think that different wiki editors may disagree because they take a different view about what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. There are people who take a very narrow view, who say that wiki articles should describe what can be found in sources in pretty much the same way as is written down in the sources. But I think that we then miss a great opportunity. With some effort we can write articles about physics that are accessible to people with less knowledge than is assumed in university textbooks.
If you think of a (physics) textbook as a linear sequence of text, then wikipedia is a multidimensional sequence. The wikilinks allow you to move in many different directions. So, in principle, it could be superior to a textbook. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivations
Hey Brews. Glad to see you doing more work on the transistor articles. I notice you're adding derivations for the different characteristics - do you really think that's necessary? I think it might be better to omit them and just refer readers to textbooks to see the derivations. Or perhaps show all the derivations in a separate article to keep the main one concise and less intimidating. What do you think? -Roger (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's clear I like some derivation, particularly if it's not too involved. There are a couple of reasons: (i) I don't find textbooks a great source of derivations. (ii) I do find a derivation adds to credibility, which Wiki can use a lot of. Simple statements that such-and-such is so, even when cited, is subject to abuse that simple logic may avoid. (iii) I find writing on the circuit diagram a great way to do it, and texts don't do it that way much; it makes the derivations very straightforward. (iv) A derivation provides insight into the material. Brews ohare (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Vector space
Hi Brews, I remember you made a number of physics-related edits to vector space. I'm currently trying to get the article to GA standard. The last step for this, I think, is providing references for various statements. I'm trying my best to cover the mathematical aspects, but could I ask you to help out with physical facts? I marked the facts/paragraphs where I think we need some references with a -tag. If you could help out, I'd be grateful, since I don't have readily access to a physics library. Thank you, and see you over there, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Brews, I've just activated the e-mail user option. I've decided that this debate would best be carried out on a one-to-one behind the scenes. It is about trying to master an overall comprehension of the topic. I wouldn't have stayed here so long if I hadn't believed that you were genuinely trying to understand the topic. But wikipedia is not the right medium for that purpose.
When you were on the EM articles, I saw that you were interested in the A vector. Basically the -(partial)dA/dt in the Lorentz force is the Euler force. But we can't discuss that here. I had a difficult time even trying to get the third term of the Lorentz force overtly recognized even though it is in modern literature, so there'd be no point in quoting Maxwell to get the fourth term mentioned. The fourth term is centrifugal force grad(A.v).
Try and e-mail me. If it doesn't work, let me know on my talk page.
There is no point in carrying on on the centrifugal force talk page because there are too many people working at cross purposes.
There is a very simple pattern to all this. It is four Lorentz force terms. Two tangential and two radial. In EM, the tangential terms are Faraday's law (and also the radial terms which give zero curl). In Gravity, Kepler's second law balances them to zero. David Tombe (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Brews, the important thing is to realize that Maxwell's method for obtaining displacement current bore no similarity to the modern 'conservation of charge' method. Maxwell seemed to settle on a linear polarization method, even though the preamble in part III of his 1861 paper indicated that he may have been toying with a magnetization approach.
Maxwell did not involve capacitors in his derivation of displacement current. But the subsequent identification of displacement current with linear polarization must have caused future generations to link it to capacitor circuits.
The new 'conservation of charge' method must have arisen in the 20th century post-aether era, because there was then no longer any dielectric in space to be polarized, yet they couldn't get rid of the displacement current in the vacuum because it was essential for EM radiation.
The problem is that the 'conservation of charge' method doesn't fit with EM radiation because it is the wrong E vector. Interestingly, Maxwell's method still applies in relation to dielectric materials. David Tombe (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed a chunk of apparent original research from the Absolute time and space article. However, what remains could do with some improvement; I'd greatly appreciate it if you could you take a look at it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Free space is by definition a medium in which the speed of light is c0, the permittivity is ε0, etc.
c0 is by definition the speed of light in free space. ε0 is by definition the permittivity in free space. Etc.
This is a circular definition, isn't it? You haven't defined anything at all.
How do you measure a meter? Well, it's how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds in free space. How do you know that your measurement is actually in something close to free space, and not in a far-from-free-space-medium? Well, you could check that the speed of light is close to 299,792,458 meters per second, except that you don't know what a meter is. You could check that ε0 is close to 9 pF/meter, but again, you don't know what a meter, amp, or coulomb is. So there's no way to know whether your medium is anywhere close to free space. It could be 100 orders of magnitude off. Right??? :-) --Steve (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steve: I've taken a while to respond. I had to think about it. Here is my take - tell me what you think of it.
Free space has defined properties and so is beyond experiment. It is a hypothetical medium.
However, measurements of the meter do not take place in free space. To measure the meter, one first sets up an elaborate clock to obtain a second (within a few Herz). Then one sets up a light source and detector in a gas, say, and separates them so time from emission to detection takes 1/c0 seconds. Then either (i) one measures at several gas pressures and fits some curve to the points and extrapolates to zero pressure, or (ii) one calculates the refractive index of your gas from formula using measured gas pressure (the advantage is NIST does the extrapolation, saving you the trouble); then your measured meter is corrected accordingly using n.
It seems to me there is nothing circular here because there are two definitions involved: the definition of free space and the definition of the procedure used to approximate free space in the lab. If we defined c0 differently, we'd get a different length for the meter, but who cares: if everybody adopted the same c0, everybody would have the same meter.
If extrapolation does not consistently produce the same meter, that is an error in either the theory used for extrapolation, or in the assessment of gas pressure. If the procedure consistently produces different meters for linearly and circularly polarized light, then we'd have to specify the polarization used to measure the meter, but it wouldn't matter whether we picked the speed of one polarization or the other to set the parameters of free space. We probably would ask why dichroism occurred even in the limit of zero pressure, but that is a real-world question, not a question about free space. Brews ohare (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Brews, thanks for bringing that paper to my attention. I will not be getting too involved in the aether debate here on wikipedia, because it is guaranteed to lead to an edit war, with people arguing over the legitimacy of sources. Have a look at this article meanwhile . I did however want to bring your attention to the links between density and magnetic permeability, and between elasticity and dielectric constant in regard to how Maxwell calculated the speed of light using Newton's equation for the speed of sound. Even if we can't write too much about that in main articles, I saw that you were curious enough about the topic to want to know more.
I've now been able to open the link which you supplied. Yes, I am familiar with this paper already. I have communicated with both the authors. They in turn refer to a paper which was written in 1998 by the brother of one of the authors. Here is a direct link to that paper. David Tombe (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Space archaeology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Space archaeology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Brews, I have been involved in this field since the 1970's. I have my own views on the matter. As far as I am concerned, the aether is alive and well. But the aether needs to be rendered into a sea of tiny whirlpools in order to act as the luminiferous medium. I got most of my inspiration from Maxwell's 1861 paper which accounts for my determination to point out that centrifugal force is a real force that is associated with pure aether pressure.
I am aware that there have been many attempts by dissidents to re-introduce the luminiferous medium. Often these attempts are very confused in my opinion. I began with displacement current. My realization that the textbook explanation was unsatisfactory led me to look up how Maxwell himself did it. It was then that I realized that we need to have a dielectric medium pervading what is commonly believed to be the vacuum. Later I realized that the dipoles need to be rotating and that magnetic repulsion is caused by centrifugal pressure between adjacent dipoles in their mutual equatorial planes. You can have a look at my article 'The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field' at . However it has been extended by many follow up papers. One that you might be particularly interested in is the 'The Cause of Coriolis Force' at . You will find papers at that last web link address for all numbers up to 60 with the exception of 1,2,10,34, and 46. The ones that you might find the most interesting are 11, 12, 14, 43,44, 48,49,54, and the last six. David Tombe (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
We've edit conflicted, so I've restored all you tweak except one
Hi, looking over your recent edits, I notice that you think that I am edit warring. I really, sincerely am not trying to war. I am trying to convince you that there are some problems with the text you are inserting. But you sometimes stop discussing with me for no reason. If you have a problem, or feel strongly about a text, let me know. Restore it, and make an argument for its inclusion. It's hard work, but if there is back and forth between two editors with slightly antagonistic aims and good faith, the text invariably improves.
The accuracy of the QCD paper is something you clarified for me, for example. I think we both agree it's somewhere between 1% and 4%, depending on how charitable you are to the authors. If you have problems with this, please let me know.
The sources on photon mass that you insert are decent, except for one, which I pointed out on the talk page. Please read the comment. I think you hit on one bad apple there.
The text you want for photon mass "the photon's rest mass is calculated by analogy with other particles, by subtracting the square of the momentum from the square of the energy", I feel is too technical for this section. But if you feel strongly about that, then reinsert it. This is just a question of clarity for the non-technical reader.
As for the sources you use, they are sometimes too technical, and too far removed from the original author of the result. If you want to say "the photon has this bound for the rest mass", it's best to link to the paper that establishes the bound, so readers can evaluate it. I went through your source in the cavity QED book, but the reference happens to be in a page of the book that is not freely accessible, so I couldn't cite the original author. If you know what this reference is, it would be good to bypass the secondary author.Likebox (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello--- there is no edit war, the text keeps changing. I put all the sources that this editor insert on the talk page, and start a discussion, but I don't always get feedback. The reason I keep changing the text is because Brews ohare inserts slightly inaccurate stuff. It's mostly OK, but there are annoyances--- for example, the citation he gave for the mass of the photon includes a book which claims that the evidence supports a small nonzero mass for the photon. It's not a good source. The text he inserts for QCD is both too technical for the section (in my opinion) and reflects an unsupported view that the lattice calculations are less accurate than they are.
I would have no objection to inserting sourced material, but the sources that Brews ohare provides are usually very technical, and sometimes they have very little to do with what he is claiming. For example, in the discussion on the talk page, there is a source which claims to discuss the Maiani Testa theorem, which he is using to claim that the lattice results are no good. The theorem is very technical, and would scare off a non-physicist. The theorem has no relevance to mass calculations, as the authors say right in the original paper, but he did not link to this paper. I had to find it and link to it after a search.
The dispute here has not been over a single factual statement, but it seems to be a meaningless haggle over wording. I don't see why we cannot come to compromise.Likebox (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There are QCD, lattice QCD, and photon articles where this stuff goes better. I agree that it's shoehorned in, here. I've said as much on the article's TALK page. It's not that the info is uninteresting, it's just badly placed. SBHarris07:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Rotation
Brews, I replied to your note on my own talk page. The main problem is that rotation is absolute and so it doesn't fit with relativity. Hence the attempts to mask out the reality of centrifugal force in the modern textbooks. David Tombe (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Removing the Leibniz bit because it doesn't have a page of its own?
Brews, the existing division of centrifugal force into two pages is a misinformed division based on a lack of comprehension of the topic. When I see two different approaches to centrifugal force which are incompatible with each other, I conclude that one of them must be wrong. You, on the other hand, conclude that there must be two different kinds of centrifugal force, each deserving of its own page. And in this particular case, I conclude that they are both wrong.
In actual fact, at one time, you had three different kinds of centrifugal force. You also had a 'polar coordinates' centrifugal force. The latter was more accurately the Leibniz approach which in my opinion is the only correct approach. Polar coordinates are only the language of expression in that approach.
Nevertheless, there are three different approaches to centrifugal force in the literature and we cannot ignore the Leibniz approach simply on the grounds that no page has been created for it on wikipedia.
The reactive centrifugal force is wrong because it thinks that centrifugal force has to be equal and opposite to centripetal force. It also wrongly thinks that the two constitute an action-reaction pair. And it further wrongly thinks that the centrifugal force is reacting to the centripetal force when we know that the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are totally independent of each other (as when gravity is the centripetal force) or that the centripetal force is reacting to the centrifugal force (as when tension in a string causes the centripetal force). This approach was born out of Isaac Newton being twisted in the face of what was effectively Goldstein's equation 3-12 being shown to him by Leibniz. Newton couldn't stand Leibniz because of the calculus priority dispute. Nevertheless, Newton's approach appeared in textbooks until the 1960's. It was purged from Nelkon & Parker in 1971.
The rotating frames approach is the modern approach that is most in vogue these days. It is the nonsense approach in which the Coriolis force becomes unscrewed from the pole and swings about freely like a weather cock. The truth is that Coriolis force is a transverse force that is tied up with the conservation of angular momentum. David Tombe (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Centrifugal force
Brews, I'd be happy to have your feedback on my attempt to make this whole area more approachable and less driven by personal squabbles. Ideas on how to improve it? Is the summary style a net win? Where do you stand on this? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm involved in a very strange argument at the redshift article with someone who doesn't seem to want to engage in serious discussion.
I note that you did quite a bit of work to that article recently and would be grateful for your input. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Inkscape
Your diagrams are excellent, and I would like to suggest to you using Inkscape to create new diagrams. That way the files are svg and can be improved by other people. Let me know what you think. sanpaz (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
To know about what svg is I think the wiki page svg is good. For learning how to use inkscape go to Inkscape Documentation.
For writing equations in Inkscape I use textext which is an add on for Inkscape. Installing TexText is explained in that website. Let me know if I can help more. sanpaz (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The convenience of SVG is that you don't lose resolution in the diagrams as the image can be scaled (vector file), and that anyone can take the original file and modify its content to improve it. See some of the diagrams I have done using Inkscape for reference. sanpaz (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I conceded to Woodstone that I had made a mistake when I told you that is not the inertial path. I was indeed, as Woodstone pointed out, thinking of the scalar equation for the radial direction.
Can you now please repeat the point that you were making in light of me acknowledging this error. I accept now that is the straight line inertial path. It contains a centrifugal force, but no centripetal force. David Tombe (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that will help clear up some confusion. I always thought that when David mentioned was referring to the scalar distance (making this a circular path), not the vector. Dicklyon (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Dick, I normally was referring to the scalar equation. Equation 3-11 is the radial scalar equation with the addition of a centripetal force. On the spur of the moment, I stupidly thought that the only difference with the vector equation was the extra transverse terms, and so I told Brews that he was wrong and that this equation is for circular motion, and not for the inertial path. Woodstone corrected me.
I think that we are all now agreed that the vector equation in question is for the straight line inertial path and that it contains all three of the inertial forces. Two of them are equal and opposite in the transverse direction and one of them is net radial. And the value and direction of these three inertial forces is totally dependent on our choice of origin. Such is the nature of them.
My ultimate point is that the rotating frame transformation equations are essentially one and the same thing. You are in partial agreement with me about this, in that you see them as being the same thing for the case of co-rotation. However, I see them as only applying to co-rotation, and that as such the rotating frame of reference becomes redundant. The textbooks use the idea of rotating frames of reference to cater for the apparent deflections that occur in non-co-rotating situations. I personally see this as nonsense. Those apparent deflections are not what is being described by the inertial terms. That is the big cock up that I trace back to Coriolis himself in relation to his category 2 supplementary forces.
I now further see Brews's point of view that the Leibniz equation is too specific. The Leibniz equation is a specific application of polar coordinates in which we introduce an inverse square law of gravity force as a centripetal force and use Kepler's second law to eliminate the two transverse terms.
Perhaps Brews wants a more general approach in which we merely expose the three inertial forces from the polar coordinates derivation and leave the Leibniz equation as one of a few examples, along with his rotating spheres. David Tombe (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rracecarr: That is a good idea. However, it will take some time. It would allow a more extended development and the inclusion of general relativity, which would be very helpful. Are you interested in starting this page? I'll get around to it eventually. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3RR warning
Brews, you have restored erroneous and unverifiable content to wavelength three times already today (and I have taken it out three times). So neither of us should do that again for a while. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Brews, why not use the talk page to try to fill us in on your thinking, instead of adding a bunch of stuff to the article, backed only by sources that don't even mention wavelength in most cases? I'm at quite a loss still to understand where you're coming from, or where you hope these edits will lead in terms of explanation of the article topic. We've tried to listen, to explain your errors, to point you at sources that explain things better, etc., but you keep coming back to an idiosyncratic conception of connections to Fourier analysis and concepts otherwise unconnected to the topic or unsupported by sources. Slow down, think about it, tell us what you're thinking, and let's figure out where to go with it. There's no need to get this article back up to 20KB of mostly off-topic complexity. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
One way to get unstuck might be to try again with an RfC, but with a better-formed question that "Should the classic analysis of waveforms and wavelength be included in article Wavefunction?" and a less-biased writeup of the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You two guys (Dicklyon & Srleffler) have worn me out. You make no constructive or concrete suggestions and don't read what is written, but simply jump to conclusions about what is said. Since I know you can behave better, and don't always call people you have disputes with stupid and uneducated and ill motivated, I suppose that is reserved for me. Have fun, I am leaving for an extended visit to real life. Make your own articles and figures. Have a few beers. Brews ohare (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I offered many constructive ideas, but also did feel compelled to question your competence and motivation to edit in this area. Enjoy your beer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have no intention of continuing a war at Wavelength. It is amusing to see that I am blocked for not awaiting consensus, while the contribution now located at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength was deleted in its entirety by Dicklyon and Srleffler, with little attempt at consensus (or civility) , but based simply on their personal opinions, some of which contradict cited sources. The claim that this is nonstandard material is unwarranted, as the many citations show. This material, some of which goes back to d'Alembert in the 1700's, is standard in discussion of waveforms in most texts. The Talk page history also shows that they deleted this material within hours of the time a RfC was posted, and again after my objections to this treatment, thereby denying me any opportunity to get comment from other than these two opinionated gentlemen. Perhaps these tactics should not push me to too many reversions, but their high-handedness and incivility certainly do not engender cooperation or advance the projects on Misplaced Pages. I'd say my record of contributions to Misplaced Pages, and the nasty behavior of these two editors should result in repeal of the block. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you'll commit to continuing to work to get consensus on the talk page, rather than continuing to edit war (regardless of how justified you think it might be), you'll likely be unblocked. Otherwise, wait it out. --jpgordon18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your "record of contributions to Misplaced Pages"
Brews, you refer in your unblock request to your "record of contributions to Misplaced Pages". In fact, this is something I've tried to counsel you on several times before, and you always reject my input as "incivility". The edit histories of Centrifugal force, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), Speed of light, Matter, and many other articles show that your usual style is to focus on an article, quickly inflate it 50% to 300% with mostly-unsourced complexification of an idiosyncratic sort, with no cooperation with others, showing off your ability to write long symbol-soup derivations. I'm not saying that you are ill-intentioned, but I am at a loss to understand what motivates this editing style, and I am pretty sure that your contributions do not represent a net win for wikipedia. You alienate all other editors at every other article you work on, as far as I can tell. Very few editors have the patience or willpower to stand up against your persistence. When you started doing this 11 days ago on Wavelength, both Srleffler tried to talk you down, but you kept making it worse; you never found another editor to support you, nor did you find sources to connect your idiosyncratic interpretations to the topic of the article. You seem to be completely unable to understand our feedback, which is why we weren't able to do much beyond continuing to reset to a recent non-errorful version (we did incorporate a few bits of your ideas and lots of references along the way, as we tried to work with you). Please go back and read some of our talk comments, and understand that all of our comments were made in good faith, and rejected by you; give them another chance to soak in. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Dick. I'd like to believe all that "constructive" criticism (which sounds a lot like character assassination), but I find it to be soap boxing. Your energy would be better spent in trying to improve Misplaced Pages by actually making constructive comments to subject matter instead of name calling and aspersions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As another example, we have Electromotive force. In a period of three days you applied over 100 consecutive edits, inflating it from 18 KB to 27 KB, with no other editor involvement and with few sources; you left the flaky narrow definition in the lead, rather than fix it to encompass the contents. Much of what you added is either erroneous, unsupported, disconnected, or of just tangential relevance. I've started to work on it, but it's hard to repair such fleshed-out for unsourced work. If you can drop back and take a look, your help there could be useful. I am particularly sensitive to unsourced assertions of confusion, such as "Occasionally, EMF is confused with the electrical voltage that it generates." It might be so, but so far I have been unable to find sources to support the distinction that you are asserting, or any confusion about; if I'm confused, I need to see the sources that help solve that problem. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dick: The tone of this request, basically an accusation that none of the work I did here has value, does not encourage me to again engage with you in editing: I'm gun shy. Not to mention blocked: how did that happen? I'd tend to advise you to leave it alone until you understand it better, or wait until RGForbes returns. (He assures me he will return, just a bit occupied at the moment.) BTW, unlike your style of editing, I attempted to work with the article as I found it, and much of the organization and commentary in EMF did not originate with me. So please don't lay it all at my door.
The technical point that the article makes clear through several examples (or did before you edited it anyway), the EMF is not itself a voltage, but an expression of agencies that create charge separation. This agency may be, for example, chemical or the non-conservative part of an electromagnetic field. Once the charges are separated by this agency, the separated charges produce a conservative electric field that, by definition, can be expressed as a potential difference. That is, the EMF expresses the conversion of energy from one form (e.g. the chemical bond) to energy in the form of separated charges.
This verbiage is made most clear in a thermodynamic treatment, rather briefly made in the article, and found most commonly in the discussion of batteries. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get into this debate about EMF, etc., but you ask above how it happened that you got blocked. You reverted the article more than three times in a 24 hour period. See WP:3RR. Reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours is always grounds for a block. I tried to help you out by warning you (above) when you went over the limit, but you reverted the article again anyway. This is one of Misplaced Pages's few rigid rules of conduct, and is meant to stop edit wars from happening. It also serves to prevent a single editor from continuing to push a specific version of an article despite the objections of a consensus of at least two other editors. Anyway, it looks like your block has expired. Welcome back. Hopefully we can work together productively in the future.--Srleffler (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I do understand the reversion rules, and my question above was really rhetorical. It appears to me that in dealing with Dicklyon at least, the preferred mode of operation is to let him delete and edit at will on the article page, and confine myself to the talk page entirely. Of course, that means Dicklyon is then a de facto gate keeper and nothing can appear on the article page without his OK. I don't like that, because his view of Misplaced Pages and my own are quite at odds, but what else is there to do? That is not a rhetorical question. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Brews, the electromotive force article is another chance for us to find a way to work together. I've expressed what think the problems are with it, and have asked for help here and on the talk page. Help needs to include sources to back up a lot of what's there already and to clarify things that we've so far left unclear. It appears to me that the key problem that the notion of emf has many different meaning, and we need the article to clarify the relationships between them, rather than focus on one and call the others confusions. If "agencies that create charge separation" is part of the answer, we need to source that, but also need to not write it in a way that excludes transformer emf, where that concepts appears to not be applicable. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate collaboration style
Brews, you've left the discussion and instead done 7 controversial edits this morning on electromotive force, removing a lot of sourced material and replacing it by your POV without clear reason for why that POV should dominate; WP:NPOV requires that we make a more balanced presentation. Why not stick to the discussion until we have a framework for proceeding? Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Dick: My changes are sourced. Please read the sources. I am not advancing a point of view. Ross's point of view that the whole concept of emf is ambiguous is simply uninformed, and I have indicated why in detail. If you take exception to some points, please identify them and I will go into chapter and verse. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say you are not advancing a point of view when you remove material representing alternative points of view? I have been asking for more detail and explanation on the talk page; please don't add "chapter and verse" to the article until we resolve this. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Electromotive force
As you will be aware, I did not make any reverts to that page without proper discussion on the talk page. The fact that you did not see these is itself evidence of the rapid-fire ill-considered editing I referred to on the talk page. I remind you once again that you are already under warning for disruptive editting. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You made no attempt to justify reversion beyond complaining about my editing style. I'm complaining about yours: intervention without understanding. Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I did outline my reasons both on technical and procedural levels. If you want to make contentious edits then you needs sources at minimum and and ideally a good deal of consensus before you make your change. Changes that do not have these and that actually remove material and sources that do not support your view should rightly be reverted. As for understanding, I really do not want to go there anymore as experience has shown it to be totally unproductive. I refer you to talk:speed of light, where I was among many editors to revert your changes and I spelt out in great detail why this was so. In stead of taking these comments on board you started a completely new thread several days later that completely ignored the previous comments I had made. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll look at the speed-of-light history if you provide me with the links. My recollection is primarily the problems I had with Martin, who could not distinguish between measured values and defined values, and between theoretically perfect vacuum and outer space. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Such comments do you no credit. It is quite clear from my edits and comments that I fully understand the differences that you refer to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
magnetism appears to be always linked to rotation, e.g. via the gyromagnetic ratio
rotation about an axis cannot be maintained to arbitrary radii without violating relativity
gravitation is associated with rotating systems in fact, and such systems are not explained by standard mechanics (e.g. the galactic rotation curve needs dark matter)
clocks cannot be synchronized in rotating systems Rizzi
The first one is easy. The H field is the angular momentum of Maxwell's molecular vortices. The B field is hence the flux density of the magnetic lines of force. Magnetism is steeped in fine-grained rotation and centrifugal force.
The second is also easy in my opinion. Relativity is wrong.
As regards gravitation, although it often arises in connection with rotation, it doesn't have to. The theory of gravity in isolation is a totally irrotational phenomenon. Rotation is only of importance when it comes to the issue of centrifugal force, since it is transverse stress that induces the outward pressure. Centrifugal force depends on rotation whereas gravity doesn't. When it comes to large scale cosmic phenomenon like galaxies, I have got very little to say on the matter. It is quite possible that Kepler's laws break down on that scale due to some aether hydrodynamical effects which are not recognized by the mainstream. The galaxies might even have some degree of mutual repulsion due to their spin. But I simply don't know.
On your final point about the clocks, I was not aware of that. It sounds interesting, but I can't think of any explanation off-hand. Clearly the rotation must be causing some kind of internal stress in the clocks which affects their periodicity mechanism. David Tombe (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brews. Your #2 above caught my eye. I assume you're thinking about the idea of a very large rigid object rotating about a fixed axis, such that parts of the object far from the axis might exceed the speed of light while points near the axis are rotating at a modest rate? This is a well-known paradox. The resolution lies in the fact that nothing is perfectly rigid, and in fact relativity forbids objects from being perfectly rigid. In practice, objects cannot even be perfectly rigid in a classical picture, since forces are transmitted through an object at a velocity around that of the speed of sound in that material.--Srleffler (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Brews and Srleffler, here are some points to consider,
(1) In a Newton's cradle, the final outcome is known immediately the incoming ball hits the row of balls. It couldn't be any other way because the incoming ball has to know instantly whether or not it is to rebound.
(2) If relativity rules out true rigid bodies, then on that basis, and for relativity to be preserved, all rotation of material bodies must be accompanied by a shear in which it rotates at different rates at different radial distances.
(3)If I slide a pen along its length on a table, are you seriously saying that the end of the pen only begins to move after a signal has travelled along the pen at a speed in the order of the speed of sound for that material? David Tombe (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
David, you're just showing what a nut you are. "Immediately"?!? Have you never heard of wave propagation, speed of sound, etc.? Yes on the pen; if you strike it one end, the other end won't move until the shock wave gets there. Don't worry, it's pretty quick so you don't have to worry about your pen distorting too much. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Dick, that of course is the automatic first response. But you will need to think more about how the Newton's cradle knows instantly how to react? The incoming ball is hardly likely to wait for a return wave signal before it knows whether or not to rebound. David Tombe (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between fast and instantaneous. Yes, of course if you apply a force at one end of a pen lying on a table, the other end does not begin to move instantly. Similarly with the Newton's cradle: the balls do undergo some elastic deformation during the impact. They remain in contact long enough for a wave of deformation to propagate through all the balls and back to the first ball. --Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Srleffler, I didn't come to the 'instantaneous' conclusion lightly. If the incoming ball rebounds, it will rebound due to the recoil of the compression at the contact point. However, if a match is detected up ahead, that compression won't even occur. Something kinetic will leave the incoming ball and travel along the row to the end ball, causing it to continue on as if it were a continuation of the incoming ball. I suspect that whatever that kinetic impulse is that it will be a kind of electromagnetic effect that will travel in the order of the speed of light. However, I suspect that there will be another leader signal which instantaneously recognizes whether or not a match exists. I suspect that there will be three kinds of signals involved in general. There will be mechanical deformation waves travelling in the order of the speed of sound for the material in question. There will be a kind of inertial/EM signal travelling in the order of the speed of light, and also an instantaneous pressure pulse which finds the path of least resistance.
An analogy exists in electric current. The current arcs sideways across the space between the wires when the circuit switch first goes on. Something instantaneously detects the path of least resistance. When matching inductors are in the circuit, waves similar in nature (but not identical) to EM waves travel between the two wires with great efficiency. When there are no matching inductors, the situation then gets more involved with particles flowing in the wire and dissipation resistance. David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Brews, It has come to my attention that you are involved in a war at 'wavelength'. I had a quick look, but I didn't study the matter enough to discover what the key point of the argument is. I wouldn't have thought that 'wavelength' could have been such a controversial topic, but then likewise, others probably feel the same about 'centrifugal force'. I'm interested to know what the key point of dispute in this argument is. Is it something to do with the complications of multi- wavelengths in complex waves? Does it involve Fourier? If it involves analyzing Fourier, I won't be able to help out. Can you please explain to me, in as simple terms as possible, what the sticking point is. If it's about basic definitions, I might be able to add a comment, but I am unlikely to get drawn in fully. In summary, what are the two sides saying? David Tombe (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Centrifugal Potential Energy
Brews, you appear to be doing a good job at Lagrangian Mechanics. Bear in mind this very simple fact. In a central force situation, kinetic energy that arises in connection with the transverse motion is effectively centrifugal potential energy. Seeing it like that will help you to comprehend the absolute rotation topic. David Tombe (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Free space and vacuum discussion
I will quote what you said on Talk:Speed of light for ease of discussion, and my points/questions follow:
Hi Pecos Joe: There is no argument that NIST "vacuum" and "free space" are one and the same as far as c is concerned. There also is no doubt that "free space" is used in some contexts to mean propagation in a medium like air, as distinct from a waveguide or the like. There also is no doubt that "vacuum" has a very, very much wider range of meanings, many non-technical, and many meaning again a medium, like terrestrial vacuum. So, I think your argument really comes down to this: “it doesn't matter what a general audience might conclude from its use; if "vacuum" is NIST's selection of term, who are others to argue, a large number of textbooks and papers notwithstanding?” Brews ohare (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
These following is mainly trying to point out why I consider vacuum to be more precise than free space, as a description of media, from a scientific viewpoint. Other points have been responded to on the SoL talk page.
· NIST does not use "free space" in publications as a synonym for "vacuum" (except when you include words like speed of light, permittivity, etc.), but some authors use the term as in Free Space Optics (but I do agree that the "speed of light in free space" is the same as the "speed of light in vacuum"). A reader with preconceived notions may read free space to mean air, or to mean perfect vacuum.
· A reader with preconceived notions may read vacuum to mean partial vacuum, or to mean perfect vacuum (or maybe ask themselves what carpet cleaners have to do with light). (Please note I would not normally use perfect to describe a vacuum, but will do so here for your benefit) Usually, an experimenter will describe the vacuum with a base pressure, or add some other qualifier to indicate the nonzero pressure.
So vacuum could mean 1 <= n < ~1.000001 (if vacuum could be confused to mean pressures less than 1 kPa), and free space could mean 1 <= n < 1.0001 (or whatever you want n_air to be). Thus, vacuum has a smaller worst-case error (same as range of meanings?), in contrast with what you said above.
Finally, a reader that doesn't know what either means (general audience) will click a link to find out, if he is interested, and it doesn't really matter what it is called, as long as the name is consistent.
Please respond on this talk page (that is, your own talk page) with comments, as I prefer not to follow a discussion across several different pages. Thanks, Pecos Joe (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Brews, before your section on Lagrangian was added to the centrifugal force article, the article would have had us believe that there are two kinds of centrifugal force. The first of these was supposedly only observable in a rotating frame of reference, and the second was supposedly the equal and opposite reaction to a centripetal force.
Consider a weight being swung in a circle on the end of a string with the angular speed steadily increasing. When the string snaps, what causes the string to snap? You will see that the answer does not lie in either of the two descriptions of centrifugal force that we had been restricted to prior to your introduction of Lagrangian into the article. The answer is a centrifugal force that can be observed from any frame of reference and which is not a reaction to any centripetal force. That centrifugal force is catered for by the Lagrangian formulation. But it is also equally catered for by the convective term in Goldstein's equation 3-11. David Tombe (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Help with altering image
I noticed that you are good with images. Do you have the capabililty to easily alter one of the images from the speed of light article, as I outline below, if you have time? The image is File:Speed of light from Earth to Moon.gif (sorry, couldn't figure out the link). The disappearance of the light beam as the animation goes from the last frame back to the first could be confusing (because for that to happen, the speed of light would have to be infinite), so I think a better way would be to have the Earth shoot a pulse of light at the moon. I will show my preferred way of showing this. Below, O represents Earth and o represents the moon.
Brews, I can see that you are getting into a pro-longed argument at 'The Speed of Light'. I haven't studied this argument in depth yet, but from what I have seen so far, I am unable to figure out exactly what the core point of the argument is. I do know from experience in these matters that when an argument like this occurs, it is usually because there is some fundamental clash over what should be emphasized, and that often, neither side wants to explicitly declare their motives. I haven't been able to ascertain as yet what the fundamental ideaological clash is between yourself and Martin. If you could explain that to me, I might be able to make some suggestions regarding a way forward. I have done alot of work on the speed of light and I hold views on the matter. But I have been keeping out of this debate because there is nothing useful that I could add to the introduction that wouldn't surely be relegated to the history section.
Unfortunately, right now, what I am observing at 'The speed of Light' is two editors in a prolonged argument who are both tip-toeing around their motives. In the centrifugal force argument, I was always open about my motives. I was open about the fact that I wanted the centrifugal force brought to attention in connection with the radial planetary orbital equation in the absence of any involvement of rotatating frames of reference. Those that were opposing me never wanted to disclose their motives even though it obvious that they were clearly uncomfortable with the radial planetary orbital equation, for whatever reason. But they wanted to claim that their interest lay exclusively in ensuring that wikipedia's rules and regulations were being upheld.
I think it would help at 'The Speed of Light' if you would openly declare the underlying point of view that is driving you,and what you think that Martin's opposing point of view is. From an earlier discussion on that page, I rather got the impression that Martin is very much of the opinion that space is empty and that there is no aether. Has Martin's point of view in that respect got something to do with the current argument? Often prolonged arguments digress away from the key point and move into trivia, semantics, and word order. Is that what is happening here, or is there a major point of dispute that I am missing? David Tombe (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David: Well I've tried to state my "point of view" as one of logical and historical accuracy. I don't know what Martin's point of view is, other than he is always right, even down to where the commas go. His viewpoint has evolved, however, from a belief that c = 299 792 458 m/s was a platonic constant like π, and a related belief that "vacuum" was a god-given medium with the mystical property c = 299 792 458 m/s, to a belief that nobody but himself believes that, so he better back off. Brews ohare (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, As the introduction stands at this moment in time, is there anything about it that you strongly disapprove of? At the moment, the talk on the talk page seems to be largely about presentation rather than about substance. I'm not inclined to believe that a prolonged argument can ensue merely over the issue of presentation unless there is some more important underlying issue involved that is too uncomfortable for the parties to explicitly highlight.
Secondly, can you give me an example of some input by Martin that you strongly object to? I need to get to the root cause of this dispute before I can give any advice. You have so far hinted that Martin sees the speed of light as being some kind of platonic constant like π. That could certainly be the grounds for a deeper dispute, but from what I can see right now, everybody seems to be tip-toeing around the main issues. David Tombe (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I've been continuing to follow the argument and I'm still not altogether sure of the point that you are trying to make. Is there a danger by any chance that you might be putting too much emphasis on a source that is clearly wrong? I may have picked it up wrongly regarding who is pushing what, but if a source is trying to say that the speed of light has got nothing to do with the speed of light, then clearly something must be wrong.
This topic of course lies right at the gate of special relativity, and so I will not be at all surprised if many illogical and conflicting sources exist about the matter. If however I could get a clearer picture regarding the ideaological difference between yourself and Martin, I may be able to make some suggestions as to how to resolve the dispute.
My own view on all of this is that the speed of light is the speed that light and other EM radiation travels at. There will be an up to date 'most accurate measurement' of that value. I can't see that there could be much more to be said on the matter. I would have thought that the real controversy would have been occuring on the permeability and permittivity pages where people could conceivably be arguing endlessly over the physical meaning of these two quantities and how they just happen to be related to the speed of light. David Tombe (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two issues: one is the speed of light vs. 299 792 458 m/s. The clearest source on this matter is Jespersen. I think the question here is not substance but presentation. Martin and Steve are afraid to call a spade a spade, and want to phrase things so they have to be read like a legal document to get the drift.
The second issue is the experiments regarding the independence of c from the motion of the source and the independence from the velocity of the observer. The experiments are agreed upon, although Martin insists on the only cited source being an unavailable book by Zhang, even though there are plenty of alternatives with the relevant discussions available on line. Here the present problem is that Martin insists upon an incorrect statement of the postulates of relativity. I don't know why he insists. I think all that is going on is a case of being annoyed at having his words changed, which he dresses up in all sorts of non-reasons. He went through a similar more short lived episode on his version of QED, but combined forces turned him off after a page of self-defense that he was right all along. It's just how he is. Brews ohare (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, Martin seems to be objecting to the first line in the introduction. If Martin is a relativist, which I'm sure that he is, I don't see why he should be objecting to that line. I would object to it too because I am not a relativist, but that is beside the point.
What about offering Martin some kind of compromise in which matters pertaining to relativity get introduced further down the article. Why not go along with Martin for the first part of the introduction and then make a statement further down regarding the fact that the significance of the speed of light as an actual speed changed with the advent of special relativity and it then came to be viewed in the light of being a universal constant. This could be done in connection with a brief mention of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
In other words, begin by treating the speed of light just as you would treat the speed of sound. Then mention the dilemma associated with the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fact that this was (supposedly) resolved with Einstein's special theory of relativity, and that subsequent to relativity, the speed of light came to represent a universal constant with a significance that goes beyond that of merely being the speed of light.
As you know, I approach the Michelson-Morley dilemma differently. But I think that what I have said above represents an accurate account of how this aspect of physics is taught in the modern universities. David Tombe (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I've been monitoring the situation further and I have come to the conclusion that there are two jokers in the pack. One is of course the old postulate of relativity that the speed of light is a universal constant. But there is also a new joker in the form of the 1983 definition of the metre. These two jokers add together to make nonsense on top of nonsense.
As usual, you are trying very hard to make sense of the situation and to present it in a way that the readers will understand it. But my advice to you here is that it won't be possible to make any sense out of it. I can't help out directly in this edit conflict because anything that I have to say on the matter is purely for the historical section. I wish that we could bring all those 19th century classical values back again. But meanwhile, if it's a game of playing cards with modern sources to try and win a best presentation of modern nonsense, then I don't want to play.
My advice to you would be not to try too hard on this one. I don't like to see people ganging up on you, especially as I know that you are genuinely trying to learn and to improve the encyclopaedia. But this may be a case where if you stand back for a while and take a broader look at it all, you will see that you have merely been drawn into a quagmire about nothing worthwhile, and which you can never fully win because of the illogical nature of it all and the confusion that it has sewn amongst many editors. David Tombe (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your remarks. It is a quagmire, to be sure. I believe the page in its form right now is acceptable, though not as clear as it might be.
The notion of c as a defined value is a point of confusion. At this point, Steve and Martin claim to accept the point that a defined value cannot be a measured value, but in their heart of hearts I don't think they really feel this way.
I gather you think this notion of a defined value for c is not only counterintuitive, but a mistake.
I think it is OK to do this, and the confusion could be clarified if it were made clearer how requirements upon a unit used for comparing measurements arise and are checked. Comparison is all that is involved, not establishment of absolute numbers.
Convenience in comparison favors units based upon easily established standards, so c stands out as very reproducible and convenient. However, the speed of sound in "standard" air could be used just as well, with a sacrifice in ability to reproduce the standard accurately from day to day and from place to place. Sound would have one advantage, though: it would be separated from relativity and electromagnetism and all the superstition surrounding those topics. Brews ohare (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
WTF?
What's with the pointy edits about the Roche ref at speed of light? You're not replace a ref I removed, you're placing a ref from an unwarranted expansion that I removed. And then you're asserting that is has got the history mangled. Why not decide what you want, and try to do it right instead of just jerking the article, and us, around? Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's jerking who around, Dick? You can't read, and are too lazy to look at the source. Nothing you say in this remark has any bearing upon what I said or what the source says. The source explains how the history of Roemer's work has been mangled, not that the WP article has a mangled version of history. Wake up, and get that chip off your shoulder. Brews ohare (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
So in the footnote where you said, "The mangled treatment of the history of these events is found in AP French (1990). "Roemer: a cautionary tale". in John Roche. Physicists look back: studies in the history of physics. CRC Press. pp. 120-121. ISBN 0852740018," you didn't actually mean to say that the source contains a "mangled treatment of the history of these events"? Forgive me for misinterpreting your words. But the source does not appear to include the word "manged" in it, so wtf are you trying to say? It would be better if you'd stop editorializing in footnotes; just say what needs to be said in the article, and cite a source that supports it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Your fix is less "mangled", but this footnote doesn't support the text it's attached to, and seems to be an irrelevant aside. So I took it out again. What is its point, in your estimation? Can you fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As any perusal of the Talk page at speed of light will show, I am not at all responsible for edit warring. In contrast, I have steadily employed the talk page for all dispute resolution. However, Martin Hogbin over-rode this discussion to put material under discussion on the article page, based solely upon his own individual viewpoint. I reverted that addition, once, and on the Talk page suggested that Martin seek resolution before amending the article. It is simply wildly irrational to say I am at fault here. I do not understand what action I took that provoked this sudden, unexplained block by Toddst1.
Decline reason:
Your statement that "I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule" indicates that you are intent on reverting someone else's contribution that you do not agree with until you get your way. We call this "edit-warring" (see WP:EW), and it is prohibited. You have been blocked to prevent you from acting on this statement. Sandstein 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This decline reason is just fatuous, as instead of my outlining a possible course of events (the possibility of a reversion of repeated insertion of erroneous material under discussion before resolution on the Talk page), an outline which lead to this block, I simply could have followed this action with no warning outline whatsoever, and no block would have occurred. This completely stupid argument to support this block, simply suggests that I am being counseled in future to be less conciliatory and more abrupt in my actions. Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This does seem rather arbitrary and capricious, though in general I'm usually in favor of having Brews blocked for a few days to give others some space to edit without his heavy-handed interference. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "declaring an edit-war" is the most accurate characterisation of the edit in question; 55 hours seems rather long also. Given that the article in question has been protected, I'd be inclined to unblock if Brews ohare gave a good faith pledge to discuss the issues constructively and refrain from reverts. Skomorokh 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Brews has to be unblocked because the whole point of locking the article is to let the most involved editors (which includes Brews) reach a compromize without edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a totally one sided block. I don't see anything in the edit in question that states a declaration of 'edit war'. Brews has got a legitimate point which he wants to elaborate on in the article. Martin Hogbin is trying to prevent him from doing so, while accusing his opponents of crackpottery. I support the immediate unblocking of Brews ohare. David Tombe (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not hard to see how "I will revert any reintroduction of this material again, and if you re-revert you will violate the 3 reversion rule." could be interpreted as a declaration of an edit war, but I agree that for this one edit the block is not warranted, and excessively long. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I see this block as kind of harsh, but I do think, Brews, that you need to change your attitude regarding edit warring. The comment was certainly an escalation of a dispute from a discussion to an edit war. I don't like to see edit warring blocks over comments in a discussion but this was a blatant violation of WP:OWN. Mangojuice06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The implications of the 1983 definition
Brews, While they are deciding, this is an appropriate opportunity to address your more specific queries. You were asking me about my views on space and how they are affected by the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ). On the 'speed of light' talk page, I didn't want to go ahead to that issue. But my view is very much the view of James Clerk-Maxwell that this equation is simply Newton's equation for the speed of sound, and that the electric and magnetic constants represent the transverse elasticity and the density of his sea of molecular vortices.
But we are not dealing with that in the current dispute. We are dealing with the fact that the 1983 definition of the metre makes the speed of light into a tautology. You want to elaborate on this fact in the article and I am supporting your right to do so.
The latest extension of this dispute has been with regard to the extension of the tautology to the electric permittivity ε. The extended tautology lies in the fact that you cannot define a quantity using an equation that only came about in the first place because of an experimental measurement of that same quantity. David Tombe (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
David, there is no "right to expand on this in the article" unless there are sources that do that. The one source that Brews mentioned that included the word "tautology" turned out to represent a POV opposite to his (the "stupid mistake" that I mistakenly attributed also to Brews when he showed that source). So let's focus on stuff that's from reliable sources that connect it to the topic, and keep the complicating details out of the lead, and we'll be able to build a normal good wikipedia article instead of a battleground. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that if one defines a length as λ =ct, with c a defined numerical value, it is perfectly evident (a tautology) that when you measure any length this way, using the transit time t and the defined value of c, inevitably c = λ/t. That is all that is meant by the term "tautology" in this connection. Thus, any source that states that length is defined this way, for example BIPM, NIST, and five or six texts cited earlier, support the notion of a tautology. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
As for the cited text: Barrow et al. I'm afraid that it can be misconstrued. If several pages around this quote are read, my interpretation of the lines "With this definition it is clear that the speed of light will always be a constant... One does not need to perform any experiment to prove the speed of light: it is built into the definition of the units and so has become a tautology" should be read by replacing the phrase "the speed of light" with the phrase "the numerical value of the speed of light in SI units". This suggested replacement is based upon the topic of this paragraph being the SI definition of the metre, and the topic is not the physical entity "speed of light" as viewed from outside the SI units. Brews ohare (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that it is a tautology. It translates as "The speed of light is k times the distance that light travels in 1/k seconds, per second, where k can be any number, and we have decided to chose 299 792 458 in order to disguise the transition from the old system". But an even worse tautology arises where it spills over into electric permittivity. In that case we use the tautological value of c in an equation to determine a defined value for ε, where that equation only exists in the first place because of a measured vale of ε.David Tombe (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Dick, 'Speed' is the rate of change of distance with respect to time. If we define distance in terms of the speed of light, then the speed of light becomes defined in terms of itself. David Tombe (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, the speed of light is defined in terms of itself, in some sense. I think we get that. Which definition of tautology does that relate to? Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
How about Tautology (logic): If length λ =ct where c=1 phoot/ns, and t is the time for light to transit the length λ, then c=λ/tmust be 1 phoot/ns for any λ and any transit time t. Any other result is a contradiction, so the statement that this definition of length must produce c=1 phoot/ns is a tautology. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I thought you were asking for a formulation of the standard definition in the form of a tautology; the definition does not have to be in that form for it to be a tautology, it just has to be recognized that it is possible to do so. Brews ohare (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
autoblock
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
The Edit War
Brews, I intervened in your dispute at speed of light as a mediator in order to find out what it was about. Basically you wanted to clarify the change that has arisen in the concept of the speed of light as a consequence of the 1983 re-definition of the metre. But you encountered a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified.
I made my opinions on the matter clear and the administration have now given their answer to that. FyzixFighter and Physchim62 squealed at ANI and an admin instantly pandered to them, broke the rules, and decreed an indefinite topic ban. It was the typical knee jerk reaction that I have come to expect. The same will happen to you too, so my advice is to steer clear of it and don't play into their hands.
Your point has been more than adequately made, and it would now be in your own interests to leave the matter well alone. If you haven't already done so, read Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell. It deals with the whole issue of 'deletion of history' and why deletion of history is so important to propagandists.
If you go back to the page, they will surely steer you into a lengthy block. Don't play into their hands. Let them have their Nineteen Eighty-four physics. Let the public be confused. It's not your problem if the public are confused. I know you wanted to help, but if the system doesn't allow you to help, you don't have to be like Atlas and carry the world on your shoulders. David Tombe (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi David: Yes, I see that the page has been hijacked and there is no attempt being made to deal with the issue. Sources are not addressed, majority rule has been implemented and the whole thing stinks. Brews ohare (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I tried to find you on e-mail at google. Dicklyon recently said that we don't really know who you are, and he's always accusing you of over expansion. Maybe you can give him this secondary source to use for evidence at the next Beeblebrox's Circus. . And by the way, I was reading the wikipedia article Nineteen Eighty-four. It really is a very well written article. But don't let your experiences here tempt you to over expand it. They'll block you, but not until you've first acknowledged the party line. David Tombe (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A mob mentality is evolving where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions. On this basis one has simply to round up a half dozen cronies and descend upon a page to plaster your viewpoint. Brews ohare (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So now it's a conspiracy theory of "a certain group who had a vested interest in making sure that the matter wasn't clarified" and a mob mentality "where there is no need to use sources or to provide argument for positions"? You guys are so cute! Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I've been making a few representations to higher authorities, but this guy Finell keeps interposing himself in the exchanges. An editor on Jimbo Wales's talk page claimed that the sources that are being using at the speed of light talk page are my writings. I have urged him to come back again and put the record straight. Meanwhile, Finell bought the idea. When I put Finell right, he then decided that your sources need to be clearly cited. From what I can see, you have already cited them many times. I have looked at two of them and they contain good quotes that should back up your case. I'm not allowed to go to that page and set the record straight, so I suggest that you yourself voluntarily pull out of this circus and finish with one final statement which includes direct quotes from your sources. Beyond that, you can do nothing more. Don't play into their hands by giving the administration the opportunity to topic ban you for circular arguing. You want to at least retain your right to return to the article some time in the future when wiser counsels are prevailing. Make one final statement, hold your sources up high in the air for the administrators to see, and then leave. That is the dignified option in the circumstances. David Tombe (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, The speed of light article now lacks any mention at all of the alternative way in which the speed of light is arrived at from the experimental determination of the electric and magnetic constants. It seems to have been purged from the textbooks since 1983, although I did find it in a 1995 version of "Nelkon & Parker". Maxwell's method was still mentioned down in the history section until Tim Shuba removed it a few hours ago. This is an example of deleting history that certain people don't like to be reminded of. It's straight out of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. And watch your back because they are talking about you at the AN/I again in a new section started by Headbomb. David Tombe (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, David. The connection to Maxwell's pertinent observation that epsilon mu is connected to the speed of light should be in there. I really don't understand the psychology behind this lynch mob. There is simply some delight in pounding as a group, without regard for the sense of it all, or whether it is a proper mode of operation. Quite amazing considering that the speed of light is not actually a religious or political topic. It would be more satisfying to all to arrive at a correct and clear exposition, but this behavior will not arrive there. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, The amazing thing is that the history section no longer contains the story that is the most significant of all in the history of the speed of light. That of course is the convergence of the measured speed of light by Fizeau with the experimental results of Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch that showed the linkage between the measured speed of light and the electromagnetic/electrostatic ratio.
Yet instead, we have a re-iteration of the modern post-1983 position in the history section. This clearly proves that your opposition is entirely motivated by the desire to stamp the most up to date position over the top of any explanations as to how we came to be in that situation. The history of the topic is clearly something that they don't want to be reminded about, and so a history section has to be eventually grafted into a repitition of the present. I can go to a library and read about Weber and Kohlrausch in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography by Charles Coulston Gillispie. But in wikipedia, certain aspects of history, some of which are even still part of the present, are being systematically deleted by the likes of Tim Shuba and a group who are going around boldly referring to their opposition as 'crackpots'. And the non-physics readership at AN/I seem to take on board these allegations hook, line ,and sinker. David Tombe (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Warning over your comments concerning the speed of light
As I've just mentioned on Talk:Speed of light, I find that your contributions on this subject are quite disruptive. You wish to advance a point of view which is quite obviously held only by an extreme minority, that is that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983. I note that you are by far the most prolific contributor to Speed of light and also on Vacuum permittivity, where your "contributions" made it to WP:AN. You are also the most prolific contributor on Centrifugal force, slightly ahead of User:David Tombe: in this case, your efforts led to an inconclusive attempt to get you and David Tombe topic-banned from the article . Should you continue to block up the talk pages and article histories of physics articles in order to promote your personal point of view as to what is physics – a point of view which has been roundly rejected as absurd by other editors – I shall have no choice but to ask for you to be banned from all such pages. Physchim62(talk)20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Brews, Reading the paragraph above by Physchim62, I found a link to your dispute about measuring electric permittivity. I didn't realize that you also have had an argument with Steven G. Johnson about the same thing. It was possible to measure vacuum permittivity before 1983, and I even taught the experiment. It's in the "Nelkon & Parker" 'Advanced Level Physics' textbook (1979 fourth edition). It's actually still in the 1995 (seventh edition) but I did a search at the science library last week and discovered that this experiment has been purged from most modern textbooks. And yet they are all trying to say that physics hasn't changed any following the 1983 re-definition of the metre? What beats me is how some people choose to rally around the new definition of the metre in order to hush out those who have pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes. David Tombe (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62, your characterization of my position “that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983.” is absolutely a complete fabrication on your part. There is no statement of mine like this made in any venue at all. It is completely a figment of your imagination, and an indication that perhaps Physchim62 is Psycho62. Please do not attribute to me statements of your own invention. Brews ohare (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Speed of Light
Brews, I see that the introduction has been further messed up with inaccuracies. My understanding of the matter is that the supposed constancy of the speed of light was used as a postulate for deriving the special theory of relativity. It now states in the introduction that it is a consequence of that theory. The spacetime concept was Minkowski's and not Einstein's. And there is now a double decker mess, in that it is being billed as a conversion factor between mass and energy. Which speed of light is a conversion factor between mass and energy in E = mc^2? Is it the physical concept of speed of light or is it the numerically defined speed of light that is supposedly a conversion factor between length and time? The introduction truly is a mess now. That's what happens when they bring relativity into the introduction. Relativity should be reserved for a special section. There's no better way to confuse the non-physics readership than to introduce a topic in conjunction with relativity. David Tombe (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, Once again you demonstrate your bias. You never bat an eyelid at the many insulting edit summaries that have been directed when edits of mine have been reverted. And by the way, your topic ban was unlawfully constituted and therefore has no effect. If the system wants to support you then it only mocks itself and all its own rules. David Tombe (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics
Thanks! I think the discussions have been useful so far. Even though we still disagree, the source of the disagreements is now more clear to me. If you agree with the general point made in my latest reply, we could think about making some edits to the article that would more or less make the point you wanted to make. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. My points relate to usage of "exact" in connection with 299,792,458 m/s, which strikes me as a bit extreme considering that prior to the 1983 decision it was actually measured at 299,792,458 ± 1.2 m/s, and post that the ±1,2 m/s gets buried in the metre. Of course, the definition is exact, but made so by changing the wording "speed of light" from reference to a fact of nature to a fact of committee decision. Abstract gets the point; Martin never will; Finell will follow Martin anywhere; Dicklyon doesn't give a damn, as long as I don't contribute. So I'm going to just sit and watch. Other than that, I've tried to put this subsection into the article, which seems to me to make clearer the implications of switch to transit-time defintions of length. However, the WP:TAG TEAM above aren't going to allow that, no matter how innocuous it is. They will not allow me to contribute anything other than changes of punctuation. It's all a lot beyond the pall, and indicates radically bad behavior with no intention to address content. I get no points for contributing "Speed of light by definition", correcting the history section, adding stuff about cosmology, and making figures, etc. I don't know what I want to do about it. Brews ohare (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that hitting your head against the wall is not productive. My reaction after reading the speed of light was that I didnt understand what the point of the article really was. it just seemed to be a collection of contradictory and confusing ideas. The history section is useless if it doesnt include the work of what led Maxwell to his great discovery. This is probably the most important point in the entire history of the subject, but it is gone now. So I doubt if anyone who wants to learn something will ever learn anything from reading that article. I think the user is always shortchanged by wikipedia articles as they arn't written for him at all.72.84.66.85 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point, or several points. The part of the history section that got fixed was about Rømer (over Martin's dead body; fortunately we had a historian that could read Danish.), but of course you are right about the Maxwell stuff. Brews ohare (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Your point about speed of light
Hi Brews, it seems that a topic ban is looming. Now, I think it is possible to more or less make your point in the article, and the topic ban can be avoided. I announced that
here. The only thing is that one has to argue in a more concrete way from theory instead of purely phenomenologically, because then you get in these never ending disputes. I think all you have to do is to accept my intervention in this matter. Count Iblis (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, In case you didn't notice, I did actually oppose the motion at AN/I to have you topic banned (6th Sept. at 2.50hrs), but it was removed twice. Anyhow, since the matter is now looking like it's going to go to arbitration, I have suggested that Steve Byrnes write the speed of light article in consultation with written submissions from all the disputing parties, and that all the disputing parties then retire from the scene altogether. What do you think about that idea? Meanwhile, Have you noticed how some editors turn up with so-called evidence of disruptive behaviour, but when you actually open their evidence up and examine it, it turns out to be merely chunks copied out from talk page debates as if that is actually supposed to constitute evidence of disruptive behaviour? I presume that they are banking on the fact that the so-called evidence won't be examined in depth. Was that what you meant by a hill of beans? It's a good expression.
You've worked with Steve Byrnes in the past and you know what he is like. What impressed me most about him recently was the fact that when I raised the query about experimental measurements of electric permittivity, he promptly came forth and acknowledged the existence of the relevant experiment. Everybody else tried to sweep that experiment under the carpet because it isn't compatible with the new unmeasurable speed of light.
Something drastic has to be done to end the deadlock at speed of light and to get you off the hook, and away from it. I think that Steve Byrnes is the man for the job. He knows his electromagnetism. I've been right through Maxwell's equations with him, and I know that he knows them. David Tombe (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi David: I've had a number of engagements with Steve Byrnes and he has often disagreed with me. However, I do believe he understands what discussion is and can distinguish it from diatribe and entertainment. So, yes, I'd agree that his opinion would be acceptable. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I have had big disagreements with him too. But the ensuing debates revealed his worth to me. He is a good mathematician and he knows how to present things in a balanced way. My big disagreement with him was over how to link up the two aspects of Faraday's law. A the end of it we both saw the full picture. I had to concede that my derivation invoked an archaic use of E as electromotive force, that is no longer used in modern textbooks. But he did see the picture. We both left that argument sadder, but wiser men. I think he'd make an excellent arbitrator in this particular dispute. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Editing practice
Completely apart from disputes over content, you could reduce one source of your friction with others by a change in your editing procedure, especially on talk pages. It is obvious that you like to be careful in the way that you express yourself, which is admirable. And like all careful writers, you go through a cycle of writing and rewriting. The best place to do this is not on the page where you intend to post, but somewhere in your user space—on a separate page in your user space that you use for drafting, an article- or topic-specific page in your user space, or even on your User or Talk page (you can delete the draft after you finalize and post it). Unintentionally, the number of edits you make in a short period of time (I've experienced it mostly on talk pages) makes it difficult for others to work on the same page. Another solution is to take ample time while composing a post and use the Show preview button often until you have it the just the way you want it; however, user space drafting works better for longer posts, in my experience. A few times when you and I have been active at the same time at Talk:Speed of light, I've had to attempt the same post 2 or 3 times, immediately after one another, because of edit conflicts with your rapid, multiple edits. I am not saying that you should never edit a post after you make it; I (mea culpa) sometimes see mistakes after I post, either right after I save or sometime later, and I correct them. However, it would help if you could change your regular practice of rapid, multiple edits. Thank you. —Finell(Talk)19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
I was considering making the same suggestion. As you know I have some sympathy with your content issue on SoL but your editing style leaves much to be desired ... and I include in that your somewhat challenging edit summaries. Fix your style and you may be surprised at the improvement in the response your ideas get (that's not to say others will agree with you but they may not disagree just because it is you; they may even be willing to cooperate, discuss or simply find a form of words that leaves everyone happy. Abtract (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a courtesy note to inform you that a notice regarding evidence submission and general conduct has been added to the speed of light evidence page. Please review your evidence submission to ensure that it meets the standards requested. This is not a message targeted at your submission, but rather a general note. You are being informed because you have submitted evidence prior to the posting. Thank you for your time, attention, and understanding. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to judge editors based upon partial evidence selectively collected from other venues by editors with an axe to grind and use that biased reportage stripped of all context to make decisions that extend outside the Speed of light and Talk: Speed of light. The evidence and the statements collected are not collected with broader implications in mind, will be only partially oriented toward any broader objective, and will not weigh the considerations properly for a different context. Brews ohare (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman had started the arbcom request with "We've had lengthy discussions at WP:ANI about tendentious editing and disruption at speed of light." But a quick search of recent ANI cases shows several others in the last few months, reporting essentially the same behavior problems, on different articles. I don't know why he asked that the case be called "speed of light". Probably he felt that would be less loaded than calling it "Brews ohare". But let's don't try to restrict the discussion to one small subset of the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dick, If you are talking about Beeblebrox's circus, nothing was proved from that. The decision was made to have an arbitration hearing regarding the speed of light article. It's too late now to redefine it. To do so would involve a whole new set of statements from new witnesses in relation to other disputes. The wish was expressed by one arbitrator to have this hearing concluded as fast as the speed of light. I don't think they are going to want to slow it all down by turning it into the biggest circus that wikipedia has ever witnessed, involving enquiries into past debates on a variety of topics. Where will it end? Do we bring in all the topics that Martin Hogbin has been involved in with other people? Do we bring in the topics that you got blocked at in which Brews and I weren't involved? I can see that one of those topics would be dynamite at such a circus. David Tombe (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dick: If this is to become Case/ Brews_ohare it should be started over again, and all that I have done on WP can become fodder for your mill. However, I think there is no basis for such a thing just because you don't like that I make a lot of edits, don't go for your cryptic one-line Edit summaries, and occasionally force you to actually defend your instant reverts. Brews ohare (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing to go that far, but since the majority of recent contributions to the speed of light and its talk page are from you, and since the majority of the behaviour complaints are about you, you shouldn't be too surprised that the case is largely about your behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews: If you sincerely wish to retire from Misplaced Pages, you should inform the ArbCom in some formal way. That might be sufficient to avoid ArbCom from making formal findings against you or imposing sanctions. One way might be to make a motion to withdraw as a party to the arbitration on the ground that you are retiring from Misplaced Pages. There is also the template {{Retired}} that you can put on your user and talk pages to announce your departure, but that probably would not, by itself, stop ArbCom from acting. I am no expert on these procedures (this is my first arbitration). However, if you want to do something like this, you you should contact one of the ArbComm members or possibly the clerk assigned to the case. —Finell(Talk)03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think retirement during arbitration would change the outcome either way. It would be better to let the user have space to decide how they want to participate (or not). Jehochman04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Finell: I am not retiring, just stepping way, way back. The possible outcome of this arbitration has nothing to do with it, but the atmosphere you have participated in creating has everything to do with it. Brews ohare (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, This is wikipedia's moment of truth. The argument has been clearly laid out. We haven't heard from any of the arbitrators yet. It's a matter now of waiting to see what happens. The argument that I put up yesterday is irrefutable. We have seen the usual attempts to obfuscate it and change the subject. The arbitrators have seen one party putting their argument forward and another party going around presumptuous and confident that this whole thing is about getting the two of us expelled for "behavioral problems". Just sit back and wait it out. David Tombe (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OK Brews, I've just read through all the recent edits. My advice to you now is to do nothing more until the arbitrators begin their question and answer session. At some stage those who are sabre rattling about 'behavioural problems' will have to elaborate. Just be patient and wait it out. Don't be provoked into behaviour that would play into their hands. You have already made your point adequately. When you stop editing, the others will stop, and the question and answer session will then begin. There are alot of lies being told at the moment. The arbitrators will read through it all carefully. You have to trust them. As I said above, it is now wikipedia's moment of truth. I don't want to see you getting wound up about all the lies. It will all come out in the wash. David Tombe (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Departure
Hi Brews, I hope that you reconsider. There are many topics here on wikipedia that you may be interested in that are not edited by your opponents on the speed of light article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Brews, When unsubstantiated malicious allegations are made, it is important initially that these allegations are strongly refuted. Lies must be kept in check. But if you continue to refute them for too long, it starts to spam the pages up, and it can be counter-productive. The arbitrators need a bit of time to examine the facts of this case. I think that they have already got all of those facts. I'm not happy that so many lies have been allowed to fester for so long, and I can fully sympathize with why you feel the need to keep going back to counteract those lies. But my advice to you now is to leave it all alone until the question and answer session begins. The less that the arbitrators have to read, the better. David Tombe (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point. I felt that no response might appear as acceptance of statements made, especially in the case of Dicklyon and Physchim62. However, I will adopt your advice and leave things alone. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That of course is always a big danger. No response can indeed be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt, which is why it is necessary for you to respond, as you have already done, and as I have already done. But there is a subtle balance in all these matters. The arbitrators will not be initially familiar with the details of the dispute and it will take them a bit of time to get focused on what it is all about. They will see alot of allegations, and they will see refutations. They then need time to digest it all before asking questions. We are now at the stage when it is best to say nothing more until asked. David Tombe (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence length
Hello, Brews. Your current evidence section on the Speed of Light case is well over the 1,000 word limit. I've already moved some of your posts to the evidence talk page, as it appeared to be largely responses to other evidence and not evidence in itself, however if you could shorten your section that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Hersfold21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brews: You might want to leave notices on the other policy pages regarding your suggested change to the Civility policy to make sure you have community wide input, generally required for Policy changes since they can affect the whole community. Apologies if you were already aware of this. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
A RFC is great... you could also try Village Pump, then the talk page for NPOV, OR, Verifiability and then maybe some of the bahavioural policy talk pages...(olive (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
Hi again Brews. To be honest I don't know if I agree with the change you are suggesting or not although with different wording I think it might be fine . What I do dislike and see no excuse for is the tone of some editors on that page. You have a right to ask for civility especially on that page no matter what ever else is going on. You have maintained a civil tone as far as i can, and that's to your credit. I have a deadline today and am also tied up on another discussion so can't do much in investigating your edit suggestion, but best wishes. It looks as if you may have consensus against adding the change, and that is usually what will determine whether the change should be added or not.(olive (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
Hi olive: Yes, it looks to me like any mandatory requirement is an anathema. However, the contribution by Rd232 looks useful, and may be the best that can be done. It's a bit surprising to me that some respondents actually couldn't understand the proposal, making me wonder what their reverts are like.
The spillover of incivility from Talk: Speed of light and how rapidly it snowballs is a serious concern to me. This kind of thing makes editing WP a chore, like hornets at a picnic.
Brews, It's degenerated to new depths. Attempts are now being made to steal our position in the argument and to reverse the roles. David Tombe (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary duplication
It's not necessary to repeat essentially the same text (that was recently added to WP:CIV) across several different policy, guideline, and essay pages. Aside from being redundant, posting multiple copies of the same text makes it more difficult to discuss, maintain, or update. Points about civility and etiquette generally belong in the policy pages bearing those names. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please ease off on your policy push. Please also note my response and advice to you on my talk page. Trying to implement policy changes based on a dispute while in the midst of it is ill-advised, at best. In addition, the reply heavy approach to discussion, copying the advice across several policies, and the immediate revistation of discussion on a point that received heavy opposition from a variety of editors only serves to support claims of that you have a tendentious style of editing. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, but please reflect on how your efforts can be seen in a poor fashion and reinforce negative perceptions of your editing style. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
1) Trying to implement policy changes based on a dispute: False statement. A normal RfC was presented as below, and has no basis whatsoever in a dispute (namely, in Case/Speed of light):
Proposed addition to WP:Civil:
* Use of guideline abbreviations such as WP:POV as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor, particularly in the case of sourced contributions. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion WP:POV, WP:Fringe, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOR and so forth cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page explanation of the evaluation is encouraged because it is less likely to generate heated debate on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It is entirely evident that even if this policy change were made, it would have no effect upon Case/Speed of light.
2) The heavy approach to discussion: The "heavy approach" consists in having a discussion: that is, I replied to the comments. I was neither argumentative nor impolite.
3) Copying the advice across several policies: I copied advice implemented by Rd232 from WP:Civil to WP:POV and several others mentioned directly in the RfC in an attempt to make them visible to those who might not think to look at WP:Civil. That action is innocent.
4) The immediate revisitation of discussion on a point that received heavy opposition from a variety of editors: The original proposal made requirements upon the use of the one-line Edit Summary mandatory. The proposal above was patterned after the contribution of Rd232 and did not make any mandatory requirements. Requesting additional input to see if the changes worked seemed a natural thing to do.
5) Reflect on how your efforts can be seen in a poor fashion and reinforce negative perceptions of your editing style. This remark appears to me to be a conclusion as much as a recommendation, especially coming from the Arbitrator of Case/Speed of light. Moreover, my "editing style" on the RfC consists of completely civil, normal responses to comments; there is nothing tendentious about it.
Postings like this, and the comments on my talk page should go to the case pages, where they can more easily be found by all other arbitrators. As an aside, I'm going inactive on your case. Cool HandLuke15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Some Advice
Brews, When an argument shifts to the issue of the fact that the error must be yours because you are outnumbered, it is usually a sure sign that you are right. A majority who are correct never say this to their minority opponents. They simply ignore them. So don't fear when you see certain self appointed spokesmen for the management who aren't actually part of the management, but who talk in terms of the 'royal we', trying to make you think that your point of view is a behavioural malady in need of psychiatric treatment. That tactic is a sign of fear on their part.
There is no need for you to be bothering with the policy guidelines at this stage in the proceedings, so forget about them. Those who are against you now will always be against you. Those who are for you are unlikely to turn against you. So just wait it out. David Tombe (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Also Brews, don't feel intimidated into volunteering restraints upon yourself, or your requests will surely be obliged. Just wait to see what happens. Don't repeat the folly of the geese in Animal Farm who went up to confess. They confessed to crimes that they hadn't committed, thinking that they would be treated leniently for having confessed. They got their heads cut off. And more geese went up behind them to confess, having seen what happened to the first lot. They also got their heads cut off. And even after that, yet more went up to confess, and they got their heads cut off too. David Tombe (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
David, with all respect, you are giving out bad advice and steering this editor into more trouble. Brews, find a mentor, anybody you like who is not actively in trouble. David Tombe is leading you down a very bad path. Jehochman14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
David, your analogy with the geese may be accurate. We'll see. I would hazard that in fact sanctions will be imposed upon me, which I find ridiculous as my actions have all been well-motivated, within guidelines, well sourced, and my conduct has been no less than saintly. However, my recent experience at WP:Civil as well as my experience on Speed of light and at Case/Speed of light has been disillusioning. Editor conduct has been shocking and disgusting. I suspect WP unfortunately is in a downward spiral to its demise as either another version of the Jerry Springer Show, or as a set of fiefdoms controlled by fanatics. If so, that is a great loss and the end of a noble experiment. I'm very sorry to see it. It could be avoided, I've suggested how, but I don't think it's going to be fixed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It will all come down to whether or not the management allow themselves to be steered by the management groupies. The management groupies are not actual management, but they go around behaving like management and interposing themselves and intruding on all representations to management. Management groupies even presume to be spokesmen for management, while carefully making a point of voicing their approval and total unequivocal support for every management decision. Strong managers can see right through management groupies and they either ignore them or kick them out the door. But weak managers allow themselves to be controlled by management groupies. This case will sort out the sheep from the goats. David Tombe (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Heading
Brews, just so you know, I changed the topic heading to "Some Advice 2" (which you reverted) so I could link to it. When more than one heading (of any level) on a page has the same name, linking to the heading name jumps to the first heading with that name. For that reason, the MOS advises against having a duplicate heading (I know, the MOS doesn't govern talk pages). Since you objected to the change (which is your right), I changed my link to the diff. Finell(Talk)19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cpiral: This idea came from ny experience in a difficult environment on Speed of light where my attempts to insert a well-sourced contribution has been frustrated by a group of editors who (according to me) don't understand it and are unwilling to discuss it. The wording was largely created by Rd232 at WP:CIVIL where I proposed an RfC. Because I am presently in the dock having cabbages thrown at me on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, I am unable to pursue matters at the moment.
As indicated in the proposal, my feeling is that reversion of sourced material using a one-line Edit Summary is very unlikely to end so simply. It very probably will go to a Talk page discussion and, although one might hope that could happen with all gentility, it very often begins with a skirmish that has a high risk of ending up in various undignified behavior. Although it's hard to assemble any data on this, my hunch is that avoidance of the one-line Edit Summary probably would result in more thought on the part of the reverting editor, and probably would lead to a cooperative stance that would end with a useful contribution and two happy editors instead of a bull fight. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for expressing this sentiment and advertising the problem at the administrative level. It matches my observations for similar attempts. That's all well and good for the project. OK, but why did you put your idea in the fringe theory article. I don't see you edit there much. CpiralCpiral21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I was following a suggestion that because the proposal mentioned several different WP pages, it would be wise to alert the affected pages that the proposal was out there. Brews ohare (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Consensus
Brews, The very fact that you incurred Finell's displeasure by withdrawing your concessions, proves beyond any doubt that you did the right thing. You saw how important those concessions were to Finell, and you correctly noted that Finell himself never offered any concessions. A bureaucracy only likes to use its raw executive power as a last resort, and it will surely do that if necessary. But it much prefers to obtain voluntary confessions and concessions in order to create a veneer of consensus. It can usually obtain these voluntary confessions and concessions by creating an atmosphere of fear that something worse will happen if the voluntary confessions and concessions are not forthcoming. Never allow yourself to fall into that trap, and always remember Sir Winston Churchill's famous sentiment, that nations which go down fighting will rise again. If you make voluntary concessions in order to atone for crimes that you did not commit, believe you me they will rub your face in the muck, and you'll have relinquished all your moral basis for objecting to the injustice. If you complain, they will say 'But did you not agree that you had acted wrongly? Did you not ask us to impose these sanctions upon you?'
Sit back now and watch what is going to happen. My guess is that there will be some arbitrators who have got investigative ability, and who will be able to distinguish right from wrong, and act accordingly. They will brush intruding wannabe administrators aside. There will also be some arbitrators who prefer to be one of the boys and support the mob. They will be more than happy with wannabe administrators running around taunting the opposition about their block records and reading out the 'de jure' purpose of the arbitration hearing, while ignoring the very obvious 'de facto' reality. It's very handy to have a wannabe that can do all the dirty work and allow the actual management to keep their hands clean.
It's now completely beyond your control as to which kind of arbitrator is in the majority. Don't bother making any more amendments to your edits. Let the passages now rest still, so that all the arbitrators can read them carefully in their final form. David Tombe (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't particularly view you as wanting to have any discussion, so much as wanting to push your view that I am a pain in the neck. Such a pain in the neck, in fact, that turfing me out of WP is the best thing that could happen, on whatever basis that must be laid. Balance is irrelevant. I am unhappy about that turn of affairs, as I initially had a very positive view of yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's hopeless. Even Tombe gave him the same advice above (too bad Tombe doesn't follow it himself). Let's leave Brews alone, as he wishes. He is an adult and is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. He certainly cannot complain that he was not warned. Finell(Talk)01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an example of provocation that escalates a (perceived) problem. Dicklyon makes a complaint which is the same as he made previously on other occasions (Brews talks too much). But this is subject to the Arbitration case. Then if Dicklyon himself (and not one of the Arbitrators) tells this to Brews on his talk page, it is likely to have the opposite effect. This is simply normal human behavior. If you are in a dispute with someone that has already escalated a lot and you do not agree at all with the other persons point of view, then a new message by that other person pointing out again that you are wrong and that you have to stick to his rules, is very likely only going to escalate matters even more.
So, Finell is completely wrong to suggest that because "He certainly cannot complain that he was not warned", this would mean that Brews would be at fault if he were to continue with making many posts in the Workshop page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What's up with the stalking?
Brews, you've sensibly avoided article-space editing while in arbitration, but all of a sudden you've taken on the oharing of two articles that you can only have been attracted to by my editing there. You've caused a huge discussion of your irrelevant material already at Ohm's law and its talk page, and are provoking a fight about a silly and messy irrelevant reference in the lead paragraph in CMOS. Just back off, dude; these articles don't have any problems for which your help is the solution, and your involvement there is hard to interpret as anything but harassment and stalking. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you look at things this way. I have had an interest in devices since 1970 or so when I developed the charge-sheet model of the MOSFET, and an interest in response functions since my Ph D work at McGill. I've contributed extensively to WP in device physics and circuit theory. You don't need to warn me off; however, I'd like to see some way to engage with you without a battle. That would be far more positive than anything that is going to develop from the Arbitration disaster. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean this 1978 paper I presume: JR Brews, "A charge-sheet model of the MOSFET," Solid-St. Electron., vol. 21, pp. 345-355, Feb. 1978. Good work; seems to be widely referenced; I had not realized that's where the usual drift plus diffusion model of the MOSFET may have originated. Is it pretty close to the one that Mead and Maher published a few years later, which they called charge controlled?
In any case, the problem here is that your meddling is not making the article better, and smacks of an intent to bug me. A random "see figures..." statement in the lead paragraph just distracts from the article flow, using your signature technique of adding your favorite or latest distracting or complicating idea into the lead paragraph. If you want to cite Baker for something, find a good place, say something useful that it supports, add a proper citation, remove the silly "further reading", and don't crap up the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not terribly conciliatory to refer to my efforts as "meddling" and as "my latest distracting or complicating idea". I had no role that I remember in the Further Reading section, and haven't looked at it. Do you think you could tone down the attitude, which tends to raise my blood pressure, and just deal with content? Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been in the further reading section for a long time; my point is that we don't need to add it again as a general ref in the lead. Also, since the author Baker thanks his friend Brews for the help in writing the book, it may be most appropriate for Brews to defer to other editors in any discussion of how appropriate it is or where to put it; of course, if he includes it in the normal way as a reliable source for relevant statements in the article, I don't see why I or anyone would object; that would be better than leaving it dangling in the further reading or adding it as an alternate source for the patent figures, which figures could instead be put directly into the article if they're that interesting. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dick, I've met Jake and spoken with him about a few topics (where he instructed me) and if I have any role in this book it might be suggesting some rewording for clarity to the novice (me). In no way am I a co-author or even a significant influence on its content. If I have to recuse myself from citing a book because of a situation like this, I couldn't mention Sze's "Device Physics", Ng's device book, or virtually any work by any author that ever contributed to Electron Device Letters. Come on. Brews ohare (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Read what I said; nobody suggested you should recuse yourself from citing it; I'd have big problems with that, too, obviously. But when the book is being spammed around, be careful. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I've said more than enough already. Now that you've told us who you are, would you prefer that we continue to call you by your last name, or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I assume we are both then in agreement that electric permittivity can still be physically measured, despite the new SI definition of the metre. The problem is though, that the relevant experiment has definitely been purged from the textbooks since 1983. I checked at the science libray recently and that experiment was only found in one book, which was the 1995 edition of 'Nelkon & Parker'. David Tombe (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi David: Welcome back again! What I think is that ε0 = 1/(μ0 c0) and in the SI units you inevitably will get the defined value. (Of course, the measurement in a real vacuum will have to be corrected to refer it to the BIPM 'vacuum of free space'.) I think that mainly because these three constants all have defined values according to NIST, and if something else were logically possible they would not specify that all three values were exact. (Although I have little regard for how NIST and BIPM express things, I do think they are scientifically capable.) However, I haven't carried through the thought process to see just how this happens in a capacitor measurement. It's easier to see in deriving the wave equation from Maxwell's equations in classical vacuum. Of course, I believe the relative permittivity can be measured. And in a non-magnetic environment where the relative permeability is 1, this measurement is tantamount to measuring the relative speed of light in that material. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, What I think is that two converging approaches to the equation ε0 = 1/(μ0 c0) have finally crashed. Historically, permittivity and permeability were measured quantities that led to a value very close to the measured speed of light.
Then they changed permeability to a defined quantity. I wasn't entirely happy about that decision, but it didn't have a major impact because ultimately it is the measured ratio of dielectric constant and permeability that yield the speed of light. So as long as permittivity remained measurable, it was no big deal.
Then in 1983, the speed of light became a defined quantity. When that defined speed of light was then reversed into the equation ε0 = 1/(μ0 c0), we ended up with a defined permittivity which totally crashed conceptually with the measured permittivity.
At ARBCOM, they are wrongly accusing you of having been opposed to BIPM's 1983 decision. I know that that accusation is untrue. But once you clarified the BIPM decision to me in early August, that set the alarm bells ringing as regards how it was all going to overflow into the equation ε0 = 1/(μ0 c0).
It is on the grounds of electric permittivity that I have chiefly based my opinion that BIPM badly cocked up in 1983. They overlooked that issue. But they may have recklessly overlooked it because of their contempt for 19th century physics. That contempt is so deep rooted that certain editors here can't even bear to have Maxwell's theories mentioned in history articles, and that is the root cause of all this hysteria. David Tombe (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to go through the analysis for the capacitor measurement but I haven't got round to it. However, I don't think anything radical will come of it. Basically the change in 1983 is from a defined metre to an empirical metre. The defined metre was a certain number of wavelengths, and knowing the frequency the speed of light could be calculated, as you know. With the time-of-transit method, the metre is empirical. You have to see how far the light travels in the standard time interval. Because voltage is field times length and capacity is permittivity over length, the actual length is moot, however you measure it. Hence, the permittivity is not affected. That is so for any real medium. Hence, extrapolation through a series of media where relative permittivity → 1 to a reference medium where the relative permittivity is 1 is a sequence independent of the unit of distance as well. That is not a rigorous argument, but it is suggestive that the change from a defined to an empirical metre really won't affect things. Brews ohare (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, It's just an exact repeat of your argument at speed of light. In fact it is the extrapolation of that same argument to a quantity that is related to the speed of light.
A defined speed of light leads to a defined electric permittivity through the above equation. That defined permittivity is therefore a number that is beyond measurement. Yet we can still measure permittivity using the capacitor experiment with the vibrating reed switch. But we obviously can't measure it using SI units. And so that experiment has been kicked out of the textbooks in order to sell out to SI units over the top of real physics. That is perhaps what A. di M. has noticed, and why he brought the thread about at WT:PHYS. David Tombe (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, the basic principles are that a capacitor is discharged using a vibrating reed switch. The frequency of the vibrating reed switch is known, and it is used to make a linkage between charge and current. Current and voltage can be measured, and so we can hence obtain a value for charge Q. The standard equations Q = CV and C= εA/d are then used to obtain an experimental measurement of ε. The experiment doesn't specify that it is restricted to any particular system of units. Hence we have a logical clash with the SI metre because that system already dictates a fixed value for ε which is beyond measurement. We end up measuring something that is already defined as a fixed number in the SI system.
That is why I have been arguing that the 1983 SI definition of the metre becomes exposed as a farce with this experiment. That would explain why this experiment has been quietly shelved from the modern libraries, and it would explain the hysteria which arises everytime I mention this issue at WT:PHYS. Count Ibliss's jitters over my comments at WT:PHYS yesterday were clear evidence of this hysteria. David Tombe (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi David: I don't think the hysteria has this source exactly, in the sense of some kind of cover-up. The source is an intuitive notion of vacuum as something real, corresponding to "nothing there". The idea is that ε0 and μ0 also are real corresponding to the real vacuum. Then the problem comes up that if you can't measure them how can they be real? That tension is the cause of the hysteria. I'd say that your resolution of this problem is to say that the defined values are a mistake. My solution is to say that the defined values are hypothetical and you can measure any real medium and see how close to the defined values you can come. The hysterical ones want to believe both in the measurability and in the definition at the same time, which is an impossible situation. That is the hysteria: the agony of doublethink. Brews ohare (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I see what you mean. A lot of them were happy with both the idea that these parameters are defined constants, and also with the idea that they could be physically measured too. They were happy in that state of doublethink until you highlighted it. So now we have to go to the gallows so that they can sweep it under the carpet. Brews ohare and David Tombe never existed. David Tombe (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys can make up silly positions to attribute to others, and agree between yourselves, but that's not a productive step in understanding and resolving the ongoing problems. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dick: I'm not sure what is silly: certainly there seems to be a faction that says I'm nuts. I think that is silly. That faction also has gone to great lengths to get me off WP because of my views. That's silly. And it is human to try to understand what their problem is: that's not silly. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
What's silly is making up these ridiculous red herrings (silly positions as I called them above) instead of listening to the many people who try to tell you what the problem is. Dicklyon (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You have said the real problem is behavioral, not substantive, and I've agreed with you. However, these behavior problems arose when participants couldn't agree about the measurability/definition issue, and IMO when push comes to shove, despite protests to the contrary, Martin and Steve still believe in both. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
They still believe that the speed of light can be measured? Who doesn't? Or they believe that such measurements can give a different number of meters per second than the defined 1983 number? Anyone believe that? Martin, Steve, what are your beliefs about this? Brews and David seem to be confused about that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Dick: Your questions might be rephrased: "Isn't the speed of light measured in SI units inevitably 299 792 458 m/s?" "If you want to measure the actual speed of light, don't you have to do it in units other than SI Units?" I'd hope the answers to both were "yes". Yet I expect that Steve and Martin would object to this & even this although there is nothing different from what a "yes" answer implies in these articles. Brews ohare (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that agreeing on the physics is agreement for your writing or your edits; or that objecting to your editing implies any particular disagreement on the physics. Instead, listen to the objections and complaints, have some empathy for other points of view and for the reader, and try to collaborate instead of just argue. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course, your advice about empathy & collaboration is good. That is aided if others do the same thing. Actually, Steve and I have had some very extended disagreements without either of us getting steamed up about it. On the other hand, Martin instantly becomes offended by disagreement and goes off on tangents. Apart from all that, however, it is my experience that disagreement over the above two linked writings of mine is about content, not eloquence or relevance, and despite sources, and any attempt to get to the bottom of it with Martin is hopeless. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that I don't think the difference is about the content of your writing -- just that you probably haven't heard what it is about the content that they don't like. But I'll let them speak for themselves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Dick, You talk about having empathy for the other person's point of view. When I entered the dispute at 'speed of light', the very first thing that I did was to ask both parties what their point of view is. Martin Hogbin couldn't bring himself to communicate with me in a civilized manner. Within a few days, I got sidetracked to the history section. I made some corrections to the story surrounding Maxwell's role in the luminiferous aether. That section was already in the article. Martin Hogbin instantly removed that correction with the caption 'no crackpot physics please'. Later Tim Shuba removed the entire section.
I don't think that the problem has been lack of empathy on the part of myself or Brews for opposing viewpoints. It's rather been quite the other way around. And right now, despite the fact that evidence was supplied for questionable behaviour on the part of Tim Shuba and Martin Hogbin, we don't see their names on the indictment over at the ARBCOM final resolution page. Time and time again, I have got into trouble for pushing compromises in the face of an opposition who will not remotely tolerate compromise. And now I'm about to be banned. David Tombe (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree that while a uniform discipline applied across the board would not bother me, the singling out of Tombe and Brews on the basis of civility and disruption is unjustifiable. Brews ohare (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Dick: What is the purpose of a remark like this: is it helpful in some way? Am I to be encouraged that you are not in my universe? Or, maybe you are saying you are of a loftier breed? It's crappy behavior Dick. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The intent was to convey my feeling that I am completely unable to come up with any kind of mental model of humans as I know them that will allow me to interpret what's behind the comments of you and David immediately above. It's sort like if I accused you both of being delusional, only a bit more s subtle; too subtle, I take it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Thank you.
Dicklyon, I think you will find that it is considered bad form to give templated warnings to experienced users. I don't like ohare's habit of making many edits where one would do but, in the circumstances, this could be taken as baiting. Abtract (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's bit of truculence (see Dick's "universe" comment above) at helping to remove me from WP. An au revoir with the hope of no revoir. Brews ohare (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, if you review my comments, advice, here and in the arbitration, etc., it has never been about getting you to leave WP, but rather about getting you to change your behaviors to be an editor with whom collaboration is possible. Now I'll have to go look up truculence... Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! A lot of Wikipedians, almost unanimously, find Brews' behavior to be disruptive. Brews should examine these criticisms and modify his behavior to conform to this society's norms. Instead, he contends that the very substantial majority is wrong about what its norms are and whether Brews confirms to them, and compounds that by believing that everyone is biased against him personally. We aren't (or, at least, the ones' who I have most carefully observed aren't, and I know I am not). I argued against the unfair charge that Brews is Tombe's meat puppet, supported by examples (that took me some time to do, by the way—and I work for a living). I have said repeatedly that I would rather have Brews remain on Misplaced Pages, even editing science articles, and learn to get along in this culture. My proposed remedies for Brews' behavior are less severe than those that all the Arbitrators who have voted thus far have endorsed. I have praised Brews' non-contentious contributions to Misplaced Pages and his ability to contribute. I have suggested that mentorship could help Brews learn to participate in this community, and specifically how to either handle appropriately or to avoid disputes while still remaining productive and satisfied. Brews withdrew the one concession he did make in his answers to CHL (apparently out of pique or misunderstanding). When I commented on that being a step in the wrong direction and urged Brews to reconsider, Tombe counseled Brews that my motive was to have Brews admit "guilt" and that I was "desperate" that Brews might "win" this arbitration. Well, it is pretty clear how it is turning out for both of them; that conforms to my expectation as to Brews—that is, I really was trying to help Brews and not "desperate" that he might be found "not guilty"—and it is how any reasonable observer would have expected it to turn out. In addition to be frustrated by Brews' stubbornness, I genuinely hoped that Brews would help himself so things would turn out better for him and for Misplaced Pages. I still harbor a small, irrational hope that it still might happen. Finell(Talk)20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Make offline copies of the Arbitration pages
Most of the Arbitration pages will be deleted, so you may want to make copies of these pages for later use (e.g. an appeals process). It is better to (also) store them on your hard disk to prevent them from being deleted from your user space.
Count Iblis, you are unintentionally spreading misinformation. Case pages are not deleted. Sometimes they are courtesy blanked, but the information is still available in the page history. Also, a questionable edit that was immediately self-reverted is not much of evidence generally speaking. I appreciate that you want to help Brews ohare out, but your advice to him (such as misrepresenting case page practices and encouraging him to pointedly test a topic ban) is not helpful. If Brews follows your advice he will be misinformed and take actions that will worsen his situation. I implore you (purely as a normal editor) to shift the focus to better (more standard) avenues of advice or stop, for Brews ohare's sake, if not your own. Vassyana (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the issue of the arbitration pages. However, the fact that the ruling is so extremely vulnerable to WP:POINT should have led to second thoughts. The topic ban from all of physics, is way too much. This may create a lot of problems if you really want to strictly enforce such a ban (and not because I would want to violate WP:POINT).
You could have e.g. imposed a 0RR restriction plus a, say, four edits per day restriction on Brews per article on all pages (including talkpages). That would have made it impossible for him to edit so extremely frequently and dominate the pages, which was seen to be problematic by many editors. Violations would be straightforward to check. And if Brews were to write big texts offline and upload them at one go, nothing would stop others from reverting such edits, so that wouldn't cause problems either. Count Iblis (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis: Your comments about a better crafted remedy are clear and sensible. Evidently, the proposals voted on were drafted without adequate input. As they stand, I believe my interpretation below is correct, and given the vindictive souls in the wings ready to pounce, the most strict enforcement is to be expected. Brews ohare (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Small correction about WP:POINT. I actually never suggested testing the topic ban in a way that would cause disruption. WP:POINT explicitely mentions this disruption aspect of someone trying to prove his/her point. Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
Brews ohare (talk·contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
David Tombe (talk·contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.
Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
My comments concerning this action may be found here. By extending this remedy to all physics related pages and (as "broadly construed" is interpreted on the Project discussion page) to all Talk pages, I am banned from not only physics but all "physics-related" topics such as: mathematics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, circuits, signals, systems, software, the history of such topics, and any philosophical, economic, newsworthy or humorous aspects. I am banned not only from contributing to these topics, I am banned from discussing them on their Talk pages and from discussing them with individual editors on their own Talk pages, or answering inquiries directed specifically to me on my own Talk page. This ban extends to minutiae like correcting typos or inserting paragraph breaks or providing sources. Any Administrator acting alone can impose further sanctions at any time based upon their own judgment of what is "physics-related, broadly construed" or simply upon their personal priorities, and several Administrators have indicated they will interpret the matter extremely narrowly, and strictly as a procedural matter independent of whatever might be the particulars of any supposed infraction. The above rather substantial restrictions constitute a total ban from WP so far as I can see. Brews ohare (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course: throughout Case/speed of light, as you know, I insisted that strict enforcement of "discuss content, not personalities" would fix things if it were applied to everyone. As you also know, that fell upon deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Michael C. Price's useful remarks
Stop whining, you asked for it. If you'd responded substantively (e.g. to my Socratic kilometre question), instead of sneering or wikilawyering all the time, you wouldn't be in this pickle. Tombe has the "excuse" of being a relativity crank, you haven't. Reflect on it.--Michael C. Price11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Michael C. Price: Thanks for this demo of just who you are. It is interesting that even when your efforts have succeeded you find it necessary to justify them after the fact with phony statements. Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's phony about the question, but I'm not surprised that you have to dismiss it as such. It would be rather embarassing for you to find out at this stage that you've been barking up the wrong tree for so long.--Michael C. Price16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course: throughout Case/speed of light, as you know, I insisted that strict enforcement of "discuss content, not personalities" would fix things if it were applied to everyone. As you also know, that fell upon deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Michael C. Price: Wake up! This discussion cannot be pursued under the ban, and as the tone of your remarks indicate, there would be no purpose served in discussing it anyway. I will not respond to further posts by you on this page, and will most probably delete them. So kindly desist. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, a non-substantive response - and right after a "discuss content, not personalities" declaration. Truly Brews, your powers of cognitive dissonance are amazing.--Michael C. Price 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, a non-substantive response - and right after a "discuss content, not personalities" declaration. Truly Brews, your powers of cognitive dissonance are amazing.--Michael C. Price17:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews: Feel free to delete Price's comments. Just ignore him; don't engage. Whatever you do, don't let him or anyone goad you into violating your topic ban. I warned Price on his talk page; Abtract beat me to it by a few minutes. Finell(Talk)18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll say the same thing I said to Finell and Abtract, there was no intention to cause a topic ban violation -- I had assumed that someone could talk freely on their own talkpage. I was genuinely interested to see Brews' answer to my kilometre question but, since my actions have been misinterpreted (and are misinterpretable), I shall desist.--Michael C. Price21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Michael, it is not proper to corner an editor on their own talk page. Until such time as Brews invites your further comments here, you should not post on this page. Brews, feel free to remove any comments from this page that you don't like. I am sorry you were treated this way. Jehochman02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this warning. I will so desist. I wish to note, however, that under no interpretation of the Topic Ban that I can understand does my adding to the discussion of the topic ban itself as invited by the posting of the ban constitute a violation of that ban. I interpret Risker's action as an unwarranted intrusion upon discussion based upon his personal beliefs, and not upon WP policies. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews_ohare topic banned
Remedy 4.2
Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.
This remedy is likely to pass. If so, I'll leave WP indefinitely.
I want to observe that this "remedy" was not forced upon the ArbCom, but was chosen by them. In my opinion, this is a decision to suppress dissent rather than enforce guidelines. As such it both exceeds ArbCom's resolution to avoid content decisions, and abdicates ArbCom's obligation to enforce good conduct.
A simple effective decision would have been to enforce upon all editors the guidelines that would suppress bad behavior, as amply documented: behavior such as catcalls, incivility, reversion of Talk page content, putdowns, personal attacks on article Talk pages, false attribution of positions not held, refusal to address content and so forth, all adequately covered by WP:NPAWP:CivilWP:Talk and other guidelines, and most clearly broken by editors other than Brews_ohare. Such enforcement requires no understanding of content, but does require impartial across-the-board enforcement. Such action would immediately settle things down and encourage open discussion of content.
Instead, ArbCom has made a call that reinforces this bad behavior by rewarding it, and eliminates the contributions of a good faith editor who has made many contributions to WP, articles and diagrams, and is well qualified, as a Fellow of the IEEE, a former research scientist at Bell Labs, a former editor-in-chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters, an EE professor at the U of Arizona, and an author of technical articles and books. That ArbCom action is considered justifiable based upon my "bad behavior", which primarily is one explicit complaint about some other editors as a group made upon a different editor's Talk page, and a certain insistence on the Talk page to employ an accurate description of the impact of the 1983 CGPM definition of the metre. A very bad move all around: an opportunity for positive action is replaced by destruction as evaluated from any viewpoint. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My observation is that you are absolutely correct. I think this entire controversy is the result of a group of editors who, contrary to the intended spirit of wikipedia, enforce their opinions upon the result despite the injunction to seek consensus. I have never seen consensius sought by physics editors of wikipedia and I think it is a joke to include that in the ArbCom comments. The fault lies with the editors who ignored that requirement and not with you or Mr Tombe. The ArbCom apparently doesnt follow wikipedia rules, so I think wikipedia to be a fraud.71.251.186.205 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
From ArbCom Noticeboard:
The evidence posted in the links here to support the claim of tendentious debates and soapboxing do not support the claim and are perfectly ordinary exchanges on a variety of topics. It is clear that the Arbitrators had no technical grasp of the discussions whatsoever, and interpreted as tendentious what were simple comments. In any event, the Arbitrators have themselves determined they are not competent to rule on content, and by so doing render their judgment on this matter suspect. The evidence posted in the links here to support claims of incivility are not directed at specific individuals, but are broad statements of dissatisfaction with the editing climate on Talk: Speed of light made, not on Talk: Speed of light but on the Talk pages of two editors thought to be sympathetic to my frustration. This decision has found the editing climate to be hostile and uncivil, so my dissatisfaction is not a personal illusion. These remarks have been taken here to warrant banning my activity for a year, on all physics-related pages (broadly construed to mean chemistry, astronomy, engineering, philosophy, logic, any topic employing mathematics, or whatever) and even on all Talk pages including my own and those of other editors, even if invited by others to comment. Any Administrator may singly determine whether a transgression has occurred and impose sanctions without consultation, based upon their personal interpretation. Besides being inadequately based upon opinion rather than evidence, this remedy is amazingly out of proportion, in my opinion, exceeds the penalties normally prescribed for such offenses, and singles me out for discipline where many others involved in this Case have made more egregious violations of WP guidelines and received no such rebuke. Further remarks may be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of topic ban is itself an infraction of topic ban!!!
Hersfold: Could you kindly clarify for me the basis for intrusion by Risker and further intrusion by MBisanz into the discussion of the ban itself as a violation of my topic ban against "physics-based topics, broadly construed"? I absolutely fail to grasp how a discussion of the ban implications and propriety constitutes a "physics-based topic". Moreover, the posting of the decision on my Talk page explicitly invites such discussion and provides a link to the location to post it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews: For whatever it is worth, I think that Risker was mainly referring to Tombe's post as violating the topic ban, and was possibly concerned that you might be drawn into it. Further, I don't think the ArbCom notice talk page is considered the right place to reargue what the decision did, why it was right or wrong, etc., which is what that lengthy discussion, which Risker closed, was doing. The Arbitrators considered the evidence and what participants said at Workshop, then reached a decision.
Check the arbitration manual. It should discuss how to appeal (although bear in mind that the final decision was closer to unanimity than most arbitration decisions) and how to seek modification or clarification of a remedy (probably a motion to ArbCom). Proposing a mentoring plan might be a reason for relaxing or even eliminating your topic ban, although that would have been more effective before the decision. Arguing that the Arbitrators were wrong about everything, were biased, or that other editors did bad stuff too, is not likely to be persuasive to anyone, in my opinion.
Mere discussion on a talk page, I am fairly certain, is not the way to appeal or to modify the remedies. Also, nothing is going to happen that will allow you to go back to dominating talk pages the way that you were doing. Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are reasonably clear, and you were not in compliance with them—whether you agree or not. Further, you are not going to succeed in an attempt to significantly change those policies and guidelines; they are fundamental to this community's culture.
Further, I suggest that you supply your critical, scientific method of thinking to the process here at Misplaced Pages. The way you have been going about things has not brought about the results that you want. The scientist's response when that happens is to try something different—not to keep using the same method, over and over, in the hope that it will bring a different result next time. Finell(Talk)19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell: I am sure you are at least 98% correct in what you say. Of course, the application of a blanket remedy to material that the blanket doesn't cover is not an indication of subtle thinking by Risker and MBisanz. I do agree with you that my main infraction was too much interaction on Talk pages, although I believe that alone would not cause anything like the reaction seen, and of course, the remedy applied is related to content and not behavior, a total screw-up. The primary reaction was due to an erroneous view that I was a total crackpot, leading to no attention being paid to what I actually said, and a desire to end all interaction on that account. (An exception is Dicklyon, who simply wanted to get rid of me at any cost.) It is unfortunate that not only the Arbitrators (who have no grasp of content) but also those who know better persisted in this characterization and failed to address content. It is also unfortunate that the Arbitrators, whose area of expertise is control of behavior, chose to act on content instead, about which they are incompetent to judge. Brews ohare (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot discount the possibility that you are right, since we are both talking about others' motivations and reasoning. We have a hard enough time understanding our own (or at least I do). Nevertheless, my analysis is different. First, I am not aware of anyone who considers you to be a crackpot or who dismissed what you had to say without considering it. Note that the decision found that Tombe, but not you, advocated fringe views. Likewise, most (perhaps all) of the individuals involved distinguish between Tombe and you, although not all of us recognized that distinction immediately. Second, the decision was not based on content. The Arbitrators made no finding about content and no finding that you advocated "incorrect" content. All the findings and remedies are directed solely at behavior. The topic bans relate to the topics about disruptive editing occurred; if you had behaved the same way on the Baseball article and talk page, your topic ban would have covered the topic of "baseball, broadly construed" (i.e., it would have covered articles on baseball leagues, teams, rules, players, etc.). The same behavior on multiple unrelated topics would probably have led to a project ban. Third, in the discussion at Speed of light, no one said that there was no point at all to what you were saying. The problems that the substantial majority saw were (a) you wanted to overemphasize a particular way of expressing the relationship of the metre's definition to the speed of light; (b) the way you wanted to express it, and the emphasis you would give it, is not found in other encyclopedic treatments of the speed of light (compare Encarta and Britannica, for example); (c) you relentlessly argued for your position for several months, notwithstanding clear consensus to the contrary. Of those problems, only (c) brought you to AN/I and then ArbCom; (a) and (b) would, and more importantly should, have been done with in a few days' discussion. (Please do not consider this an invitation to reopen discussion of the content issue.)
You have a tendency to take one small statement and magnify its significance. You are taking Risker's very brief edit summary, or brief summary reason for closing the discussion, to be all that she was thinking, and from that to conclude that she misunderstood everything. (You similarly overemphasize the significance of 5 words from one source, "never to be measured again", in my opinion. We did not ignore you. We read them and their context.) MBisanz just took Risker at her word, which is not unreasonable. The point is that Risker closed that discussion (for good reason), and you were ignoring that. I also think that you are wrong about Dicklyon; he was more receptive than most others to accommodating article content to reflect the position you were arguing, at least to some extent (and that let to his conflict with Martin).
Brews, would you like some useful, practical advice? I recommend that you just drop all these questions for about two to three months. During that time you could go edit some other articles (millions are available to you). Demonstrate that you can work well with others. After that, feel free to place any appeals or requests for clarification. If you follow my advice, I think you'll get the best possible result. Jehochman21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
That is excellent advice. The topic ban does not include math, which is one of your strengths; but you should stay away from specific applications of math to physics, mathematical analysis or proof of specific equations or systems of equations in physics, etc. Likewise, articles about electronic devices as such (not the underlying physics) should be OK. Ouch! Contribute more graphics (you seem to enjoy that, and you excel at it). You are not confined to articles about food products or geographic locations. However, there is something to be said for editing articles outside your primary areas of interest. I've done some editing of articles that have nothing to do with my primary interests—Zoot suit, classical Chinese literature, In-N-Out Burger, an area in India were my daughter is doing volunteer work (I don't learn much about it from her letters!), Joseph Priestley, among others—and I've learned some things in the process. But above all, stay out of disputes. Don't enter existing disputes. If you make an edit or statement that you think is non-controversial, but controversy erupts, disengage. There is a lot of satisfying work you can do to improve Misplaced Pages without ever getting into an argument. In fact, that might turn out to be even more satisfying than banging your head against the wall with other editors who, for whatever reason, are not persuaded see things your way. Finell(Talk)23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Gag orders
In my opinion, you are not being wise by injecting yourself into a dispute at AN/I. Remember that you are under probation. Also, your dismissal of Jehochman was unwarranted and borderline (at least) uncivil, as was your remark on Hersfeld's talk page (which he did you the favor of deleting). The advice Jehochman gave you was good, regardless of whether you like it or him. He also supported you against Price's attack on your talk page. You have a tendency to only see what you dislike when you judge others. The arbitration must have been traumatic for you, which is very understandable. Please consider taking a voluntary wikibreak of 2 weeks or so, to calm down.
Iblis said that you are a physics professor. Is that correct? (I did note your impressive work and publication identified on Dicklyon's talk page; he's been on my watchlist for a few years). Regards, Finell(Talk)05:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell: If you read my remarks at AN/I, they are not of a technical nature and in no way approach the boundaries of my ban. They are pleas for cooperation instead of following the gag order approach to dealing with different opinions. The latest remarks by OMCV PBS and the opposition of Admin CBM indicate once more a complete intolerance to compromise. This hostile, even vindictive, approach to dissent is not the way things should work. WP needs more tools in its box than the gag order as , by its very nature, WP is supposed to invite all comers and provide a collaborative atmosphere. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read my post again, you will see that I did not mention your topic ban. I mentioned your probation, which is purely behavioral. Some things, like unsourced material and original research, are barred from Misplaced Pages (at least, when an editor challenges them). Keeping that material out of Misplaced Pages that is against policy is not a "gag order". Arguing for inclusion of material that is clearly against policy is itself against policy. Further, given your recent experience at ArbCom, please consider the possibility that you may not be objective in the way you view things.
I would still appreciate an answer about Iblis's statement that you are a physics prof.
Regarding Jehochman, take a look at his talk page—at entries that have nothing to do with issues that involve you. Perhaps that will give you a better appreciation of his outlook. —Finell(Talk)18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell: I understand you think I am a hot-head who is pretty dense. However, (i) arguing for a wider forum for an editor under siege is not contrary to guidelines, and is not topic specific, and (ii) arguing that the guidelines need work is not against guidelines. If these actions are pushing against probation, it is a jaundiced view of that probation. Mind you, that would not surprise me in the least. Brews ohare (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have never said, or thought, that you are hot-headed. To the contrary, you appear to be extremely deliberate; I believe I have said this publicly. You might do well to stop trying to read others' minds or presume their motivations. That does not appear to be one of your strongest abilities. As for dense—certainly not overall, but it does appear to me that you have difficulty grasping certain things, such as good faith disagreements with your ideas or method of argument. Your assumptions that people are biased against you, as opposed to disagreeing with what you say, are not supported by objective fact. —Finell(Talk)19:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course people can disagree, but they don't have to be disagreeable. As for bias against me, perhaps not, but as to inability to converse without invective, catcalls, sarcasm, putdowns, distortions, red herrings and fake reductio ad absurdum, absolutely. Brews ohare (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the fake reductio ad absurdumis a reference to my socratic you-know-what which we can't speak about. I can only assure you that I saw nothing fake about it. --Michael C. Price20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur with what is said above. Brews: You are taking all the right paths to having your topic ban upgraded to something a lot less pleasant. Please stop getting yourself into bad situations and just do some editing. AGK23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, it's clear that you haven't gotten the idea from the arbitration that your behavior is a problem, and you haven't taken the suggested break to cool down and reflect. Let me be the fourth person to suggest that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Dick: Here is my take on matters: I have been banned from activity on any technical topic that interests me. That ban arose, in my opinion of course, from a hugely exaggerated response to my attempts at proposing a clear statement of the lead in Speed of light, which drew in a bunch of editors unknown to me and yourself. As a result of, according to me, a hugely biased hearing full of absolute disinformation, ArbCom came to a remedy that (i) was incorrectly framed to correct the situation, evne as they understood it and, (ii) was out of all proportion to the infraction. Because I view this proceeding as extremely flawed, I am interested in having the underlying procedures scrutinized from a completely abstract point of view so that future hearings will be more equitable and less likely to occur. This laudable activity stems from the unfortunate history behind me, but is otherwise disconnected from those events.
As I understand the remedies against me, none bears upon such an enterprise. Nonetheless you and many others continue to insist that somehow there is a connection. I'd say it is because the lot of you cannot believe that I can actually let go of the past and undertake to do something new, but are under the impression that somehow all this is going to come round and turn out to be some form of imagined retribution. Although, if I knew how, I'd happily take the bunch of you to AN/I and have you publicly flogged, I can see no way that is likely to happen, and have decided it is water under the bridge. So, put such thoughts to rest. Brews ohare (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I think you're delusional. You obviously haven't let go of what the arbcom case was about, nor understood it even. I recommended a much less severe outcome early on, to simply have you abide by a limit on how much more you could add to articles and talk pages than the next most active editor; I think that would have made your participation more nearly tolerable. But instead they went for a topic ban, though I pointed out that the problem was not very topic related. OK, so you're proving me right. Given a chance now, I'd say a block for a couple of months to let you forget about it and maybe find another hobby for your retirement would be a better idea. But keep it up and we'll likely be back at it, with a stiffer outcome next time. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I was too busy with other things to reply to your postings on my talk page. I also had some unfinished business on William Connolley's talk page about my views on the speed of light.
Let me just react to your involvement now on AN/I. I really do not see what the people here are complaining about. To put things in perpsective, one could perhaps take a look at the topic bans User:Abd received on the Cold fusion page and for postings on AN/I. These were bans for good reasons. I do not see the same type of problem with your postings on AN/I.
What you have to be careful about is to stay focussed on the particular problem under discussion and to be as concise as possible. Make your point once, avoid repeating it over and over again. You can give clarifications if someone asks you, of course. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Count, you're a huge part of the problem here. You're egging on an editor who has some possibly resolvable problems, pushing them towards a siteban. Would you please recuse yourself from this matter. It will be a big help to Misplaced Pages and to Brews ohare. Jehochman00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to hear any constructive critisicm by you or others about Brews' recent AN/I postings. At least I did write above about some things he (and for that matter any editor) should pay attention to. Perhaps more can be said.
But Brews is not a five year old who can be "egged on" at all! In fact, if people write that Brews cannot do X without explaining why not, or what he is doing wrong so far, Brews will not take the people who said that seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not complaining about Brews' behavior. I am trying to keep him out of getting himself into more trouble. But I've said what I have to say, and Brews can do what he chooses to do—obviously. —Finell(Talk)01:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
AGK: Your response here and on your talk page both again fail to indicate specific grounds upon which my engagement regarding WP guidelines at all constitutes a violation of the remedies against me. I have responded in more detail on your Talk page. This baseless intimidation by yourself and other editors on this talk page with refusal to provide a basis, and threats of expanding the sanctions against me is despicable. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop being a drama queen, Brews. To repeat myself for the third time: I am not claiming that your involvement in policy discussions is a violation of your topic ban. I am simply saying that involving yourself in heated discussions is an unwise approach for an editor who is walking (as all sanctioned editors are) on thin ice. AGK17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
AGK: Repeating yourself three times: let's see. (i) 23:32, 24 October "Concur with above" suggesting I take a WikiBreak,(ii) 12:00, 25 October 12:05 "I echo Headbomb" who said I should "adjust my ways" or expect to land in "more trouble", (iii) 12:05 25 October "I echo Jehochman" who said I was heading to a site ban, 16:07, 25 October (iv) "Please be succinct... I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way." This last is the first actual statement of your position, and both a milder and clearer version than those you echoed and concurred with earlier. Is it only a "drama queen" that becomes excited over having their future bandied about without regard? Brews ohare (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've stated my position three times:
"Please stop getting yourself into bad situations and just do some editing"; 23:32, 24 October 2009, above.
"A user who has been topic-banned would be expected to be on his very best behaviour… Your recent contributions to the meta discussions that have been cited on your talk page and elsewhere are certainly not the most effective way of "; 12:00, 25 October 2009, my talk page.
"you are, by making a point to involve yourself in heated conflicts, acting without clue"; 16:07, 25 October 2009, my talk page.
If you dislike others being flippant in their attitude to your future, then you would do well to treat it seriously yourself. You're looking for trouble, and my basic point is that it's going to find you, sooner or later. I'm not trying to threaten or bully you; I'm trying to guide you. Am I being clear and being fair in my comments? AGK21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I object to the suggestion that I am being closed-minded in my evaluation of your recent contributions. That is, of course, unless concluding that the seeking out of conflict by a topic-banned user is unlikely to end well is closed-minded. You've answered my first question, but not my second, so I respectfully ask again: am I being fair in my comments? AGK18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity
My cautions to the other editors should not be misunderstood as any sort of endorsement for your own positions, attitudes, or approaches to Misplaced Pages editing — nor should my requests be interpreted as an invitation for you to re-plead your Arbitration case with me.
I object strenuously to other editors poking you while you're under Arbitration sanction, but I will not be drawn into bickering or badmouthing between you and other editors whichever way the criticism is flowing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A sanction works two ways, Brews. If you behave well, yet others unfairly provoke you, we will be very keen to protect and encourage you to continue doing well. If on the other hand you disregard the sanction and make further trouble, there will be little patience. Which path will you take? Jehochman18:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope so; my past experience doesn't lead me to take too seriously the "keen encouragement" but I certainly have experienced the "little patience" (and little attempt at justification). Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would hope that you would feel comfortable approaching any administrator to request assistance with another user, or group of users. I certainly would do my very best to help you if you were having trouble on the project; it's the least I could do after criticising you so heavily over the past two days. AGK18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(i) Admins should not respond to mere clamor about disruption, but to documentable rules violations.
(ii) Admins should maintain a good editing environment on Talk pages: violations of WP:Civil,WP:NPA,WP:Talk & WP:Poll should be prevented, including catcalls, cheerleading, and red herrings, as elaborated below.
Admins should suppress catcalls; by this is meant interjections into a thread on the Talk page that are jeers or boos, such as Buckle your seatbelt, here we go again!
Admins should suppress cheerleading; by this is meant that accolades like "Me too!", "I echo that!", "I concur!", should be taboo, because they are made to snowball or bandwagon a viewpoint, not to add dimension to the discussion. They are intended simply to intimidate opposing viewpoints.
Admins should suppress red herrings; by this is meant injection into a thread on a Talk page a diversionary topic, meant as a distraction to interrupt discussion, or as a means of introducing a pet topic or rant that otherwise would be ignored. Separate threads should be started for separate topics.
(iii) Admins should narrowly interpret and rigidly enforce WP behavioral guidelines regardless of whom Admins believe to be in the right.
(iv) Admins should ride herd on waving about of WP:POVWP:ORWP:SYNWP:Fringe as self-evident labels and insist that the evidence supporting their use be presented explicitly.
(v) Admins should insure that Main article page rules are not applied to Talk page discussion, which last should be more open and free.
(vi) Admins should not take preemptive action based upon personal predictions of what might happen, but restrict themselves to what actually does happen. They are not fortune tellers.
(vii) Admins say themselves that they cannot address content, and so should not propose remedies that are content specific. For example, topic bans should not be imposed because Admins are frankly unable to distinguish occasions where the topic actually has been discussed (a violation), from other occasions where the topic has been merely alluded to, or has been used only as an example, or in fact hasn't come up at all although some of the vocabulary has been used. Page bans are better, because infractions are readily identified, whether you know anything or not. Behavioral control is even more appropriate, such as strict enforcement of WP:NPA or WP:Civil or WP:Talk.
(viii) Admins' overriding principle should be to keep the decks clear for open discussion by insisting upon discussion of content, and rules should be enforced to catalyze diversity of opinion, especially in the presence of vocal support for a particular view. Misplaced Pages:Reasonableness should be kept in mind. Brews ohare (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
► … ♫ … ◄
Were you planning on starting another project where these commandments might apply? They certainly don't all square with policy around here. Frank | talk 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a diversity of views. If you ever decide to run for adminship, you can adopt these principals, and encourage others to do the same. Jehochman01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As noted, I consider this behavior as obviously desirable, and I am discouraged that one Admin sees them as applicable only to "another project" and still another Admin would consider them so far off base as to constitute a "diversity of views" requiring new blood to encourage their adoption. I feel that WP depends upon open discussion of content and the prevention of activity that inhibits it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say they were far off base. We have a great diversity of views on Misplaced Pages. Each person can follow their own ideals (to a point), and may try to convince others (to a point). Jehochman16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
is something, but without knowing what goes on, it is hard to grasp). Having something in this direction would be a nice addition to the groups article (we could replace one of the symmetric molecules by this, for this is a bit repetitive). Thank you for your help, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
is not the inertial path. I was indeed, as Woodstone pointed out, thinking of the scalar equation for the radial direction.
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.
