This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FDT (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 18 August 2009 (→Johann Bernoulli II: reply to FyzixFighter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:21, 18 August 2009 by FDT (talk | contribs) (→Johann Bernoulli II: reply to FyzixFighter)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).jpg){kind=small} | Physics: History Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Merge
We had the history repeated and diverging in two articles, in neither of which was it well integrated or a good fit, so I made this place to merge them. Still need to merge from Centrifugal_force#History_of_conceptions_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. Adding centripetal force may be tricky. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did the merge. It doesn't say much about centripetal; maybe it should say more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Johann Bernoulli II
FyzixFighter, you have just removed a perfectly sourced paragraph which contained Johann Bernoulli's views on centrifugal force. Yesterday, you were arguing about the absolute right to insert quotes from secondary sources and now you are taking the opposite point of view. The only common theme here seems to be your ongoing campaign of removing edits which I make. You can't even leave the history section alone where it conflicts with your modern day viewpoint. David Tombe (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I indicated in the edit summary, I removed it for several reasons. The primary reason is that this has nothing to do with the history of centrifugal force. Why is Bernoulli's use of centrifugal force in this instance notable with respect to the conception of centrifugal force? What impact did his ideas have on the development of the understanding of the centrifugal force? This is not an article about the various now defunct aether theories, but about the history of centrifugal force. From my reading of other history of science sources, Bernoulli's usage was not a unique approach as all the Cartesian mechanical models invented in that era that were based on vortices relied on Huygens' and Descartes' concept of centrifugal force. Are we to include every instance in the history of science where someone used the idea of centrifugal force to support their ideas? Or are we going to actually focus on the subject of the article, and include those instances in history whose notability with respect to the subject are well established by secondary sources? What are the thoughts of the other editors - Dick, David J, Wilhelm, anyone else? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with FF. It's the same reason I omitted the Maxwell 1861 vortex theory when I did the merge. I couldn't see the relevant to the topic. Dicklyon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Now there's a surprise. When has Dicklyon not sided with FyzixFighter? They both claim that they can't see how the idea of vortices pushing against each other with centrifugal force can be relevant to the topic of centrifugal force! This is just a case of deleting a part of the history of centrifugal force that Dicklyon and FyzixFighter don't want to be reminded about. They are obviously both afraid that there might be too much truth in it. Nobody deletes historical ideas unless those ideas represent a plausible alternative to the existing orthodoxy. David Tombe (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I find that idea that EM waves are communicated via a sea of vortices to be quite frighening! Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Dick, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the idea is ridiculous and that Maxwell and Bernoulli were crackpots? If so, then why worry about it being accurately recorded as an item of historical curiosity along with the flat Earth theory? Or are you trying to tell me that you are actually frightened by the idea, and that that's why you and FyzixFighter have deleted all references to it? I'll be quite frank about the matter. I think that Maxwell and Bernoulli were both right. I understand that Euler and Tesla were also sold on the idea. David Tombe (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that dead-end ideas about the ether don't serve to clarify the conception of centrifugal force, and that I'm not fearful of truth. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Dick, It doesn't actually matter what your opinion is. If those aether ideas were heavily tied up with centrifugal force, then they should be mentioned in a chronological history of ideas relating to centrifugal force, in respect of that relationship to centrifugal force. This is an example of you and FyzixFighter taking on the self appointed role of the thought police and deciding which aspects of history the public should be allowed to know about.
The current orthodoxy seems to be that centrifugal force is a fictitious force that can only be observed from a rotating frame of reference. This current orthodoxy is strongly upheld by yourself and FyzixFighter. But it is a matter of importance that people should be able to read a history section and take note of the fact that the current orthodoxy wasn't always in existence. Once you start tampering with history, you are taking things too far. The two of you are getting carried away with yourselves because of your own blinkered views on the topic.
You are the one that was so keen to have a special history article. But it is now clear that you have taken on the role of official censor of that article as to what can appear in the history. David Tombe (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than name-calling and throwing out your typical personal attacks, David, which you have been advised multiple times to avoid, why not address the questions and points I brought up. However, if you feel that any reasonable response would not change the minds of the other editors, then you do have other options: providing reliable sources that specifically relate the edit you want to include to the topic at hand (the history of CF), or put in a request for comment to get more input as the next step in WP:DR. Either way, the ad hominem attacks must end. I refuse to engage in any further discussion with you if you continue in this way. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
FyzixFighter, I read your comments above and I didn't follow the relevance of your point about Johann II Bernoulli's approach not being unique. I do however know that one should not confuse the large vortex idea of Descartes and Leibniz, (which may also have been bought by the senior Johann Bernoulli), with the sea of tiny vortices that was being advocated by the young Johann II Bernoulli, and later Euler, Maxwell, and Tesla, and perhaps others.
The sea of vortices is intricately tied up with centrifugal force. It's centrifugal force which contributes to its stability, and as far as Maxwell was concerned, gave rise to lateral repulsion between the magnetic lines of force. As a general concept, it can be legitimately introduced into this history section on the basis that centrifugal force played an important role in some aether theories of the 18th and 19th centuries. Don't forget that this is a history section. We know that you fully support the current orthodoxy regarding centrifugal force being merely a fictitious force that can only be observed from a rotating frame of reference. But you cannot allow your own views to restrict the contents of a history article. To do so, would suggest that you are restricting certain historical ideas because they offer a plausible alternative to the existing orthodoxy.
If you know of any other famous physicists in the past who advocated the involvement of centrifugal force in a sea of tiny vortices, I would welcome you to introduce this material into the article. But we need to get the chronology and the coherence correct.
As far as I am concerned, the earliest references to the rotating frames of reference approach are probably Lagrange or Coriolis. I don't accept that Daniel Bernoulli saw it as fictitious, despite what Meli says. I have a reference here in which Daniel Bernoulli is shown to be advocating a real centrifugal force that opposes gravity, albeit that I don't agree with his idea that it is of constant value. .
I think that you will have to learn to put your own orthodox prejudices aside when contributing to a historical article. I have never attempted to hide historical facts that I don't like. I was very disappointed when I discovered that Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis was responsible for letting the Coriolis force off the hinges, but I have never stated my opinions on that fact in a main article. I have always fully acknowledged Coriolis's role in the development of the concept of rotating frames of reference. I have reported him accurately, using his term 'supplementary forces'. My preferred term is of course 'inertial forces'.
This edit war can be explained on the basis of one single example. You have insisted on using a 1990 source by Meli which stamps Meli's modern viewpoint over the viewpoint of Daniel Bernoulli. You have insisted on giving primacy to this source without clarifying in the text that the opinions expressed are Meli's and not Bernoulli's. Now I don't believe for one moment that you aren't capable of seeing that Bernoulli's statement merely means exactly what it says, ie. that centrifugal force differs from other forces in that varies according to the point of origin. Meli has extended Bernoulli's statement from 'origin' to 'frame of reference' in line with modern attitudes. If you were trying to write the article to reflect the truth, you would not be wanting to give such a high profile to Meli's source. It is no good to claim that you are merely adhering to wikipedia's rules on secondary sources. There is an issue of balance and undue weight to be considered as well, and you are ignoring that. We need to know why. And it appears to me that you are using the Meli source as a means of stamping 2Oth century attitudes on top of an 18th century observation. So long as you continue to try and blot out historical beliefs using the opinions expressed in late 20th century secondary sources, then this section can never be written in a coherent and readable fashion. It will end up as a patchwork of sources and counter sources.
Basically, you need to ask yourself what is your objective in coming to this page. I see no evidence of any existing interest on your part in the history of centrifugal force. On the other hand, I have been heavily involved in the history of electromagnetism for years. I'm trying to add to these articles, and you have been continually subtracting knowledge which you hadn't previously known about. David Tombe (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories: