User talk:DVdm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


— Welcome to my talk page —

Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond on this page.
If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it.
If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here.

"Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow."
"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
"Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny."
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself."

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years, 11 months and 7 days.

— Canard du jour —

"As the light changed from red to green to yellow and back to red again, I sat there thinking about life.
Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way."

Jack Handy
vn-211 This user talk page has been vandalized 211 times.


Thank You[edit]

Thanks for the kind advice you gave me about potentially becoming a Wikipedia editor. It's quite clear that becoming a Wikipedia editor is not as easy as it looks, but anything worth learning correctly takes time. I have reviewed the information you have forwarded to me, and plan to do so several more times to get a firm handle on what would be expected of me as well as digesting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. When I do take the step to sign up and join the Wikipedia community, I would appreciate it if I could query you from time to time on my work. It is clear that your work with Wikipedia is commendable, and that you are held in a high regard among other Wikipedia editors. Although it is not my place to judge, nor am I an Wikipedia editor, it would appear certain Wikipedia editors have gone off the reservation for lack of a better phrase. Thanks again for your assistance, and wish me luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, when you have signed up, you can put {{adoptme}} on your user page or talk page, and then someone will contact you to help you along. Good luck! smile - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hello, I Decided when This IP [[1]] repeatedly vandalized Constitution of South Carolina, I went to his contributions and found that he had made many edits and almost all of them Were extremely Inappropriate, Including Talking Trash about Homosexuals. But I feel that I must bring up the question, Should I take this to Administrator intervention Over vandalism?


Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, the previous vandalisms are old. It's possible that this was another person. Just increase warning levels each time they vandalise again. Beyond level 4, you can go wp:ANV. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am Being Bold[edit]

I got the trout idea from another who was encouraging me to BE BOLD!!! No offense meant by this. Just Humor.

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wildwood trout? Eureka trout? Manchester trout? Or Chesterfield trout? - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, comics have rotted my brain. grin Paradoctor (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Very nice painting. Had never heard of Eisner before. Interesting. Rotting or ripening, who will tell? - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely Crumbling. Twisted and one-sided, too. Paradoctor (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello! Your recent edit to "spacetime", removing the simple claim that space-time geodesics are shortest paths, is an improvement, but it is still incorrect. In the book by Berry you cite, he says geodesics in space (*i.e." a space with a positive definite metric, so not relevant to spacetime, but relevant to spacelike subspaces of it) are shortest paths and geodesics in spacetime are longest paths. The second claim is not unqualifiedly true. Only timelike paths are longest (maximum lapse of proper time between the events). Other geodesics of the spacetime metric (e.g., spacelike paths) are stationary but not extremal. I've added something to the talk page of the spacetime entry, as I do not wish to get involved in edit cycles of the main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:17, 6 March 2014‎

Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
See article tak page Talk:Spacetime#An erroneous claim about spacetime geodesics, at the bottom. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

You're incorrect. I linked directly to the Swatch Internet Time page, which has all of the information necessary. Please revert your reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talkcontribs) 05:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Hi. Please note that Wikipedia is not a proper source—see wp:CIRCULAR. Besides, numbers are not directly related to this Swatch Internet Time, so linking to it would be wp:UNDUE. If you strongly feel differently about this, please take it to the talk page of the article to which you were trying to add the link. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What we dream about.[edit]

I recently had this conversation with a student on a physics forum. If only... Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, and rewarding, even if the replies were—almost alarmingly—short. Yes, if only... but sometimes it does happen smile - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to QM[edit]

I added references as requested. What original research is there!? Mcplums (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is the best place for discussing this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

formula for time[edit]

You removed my addition of the formula for time. The "Time" article did not have this formula. I did not site it because I thought this formula was a given. I tried not to speculate too much about the implications of this formula, but simply pointed out that it presents an argument from infinite regress. I did not cite this observation because I made the observation. I was hoping that others would add on to and clarify the mathematical formulations of time. This was intended to be a seed. Please replant it. If you are the first person with the skills necessary to nurture it, then have at it. If not, please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwetherow (talkcontribs) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
As I said on your talk page, see our policy about wp:original research. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


DVdm. Are you a parent? If you lost a child would you want it to be in an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Ah, if you are the subject of the article, then I understand the motivation behind your edit. I probably wouldn't want that kind of information in an article about myself either. If you would have provided an wp:edit summary, I might have overlooked the edit. I think the best thing to do, is to go to the talk page of the article and propose to remove that information. Don't forget to sign the message with the four tildes. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

de Broglie wave mechanics[edit]

Louis de Broglie is a Nobel Laureate. I am including his interpretation of what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "reliable source". I would think a Nobel Laureate would be a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Yes, but this is about the conclusions that you draw from the source—see wp:SYNTH. Please use the article talk page Talk:Double-slit experiment. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You said about the Valeriy Sbitnev article, "per discussion, still not OK; it's not even a published, and not particularly relevant". It's not published and it will remain out. However, once it is published it will be back in as it is extremely relevant. As far as I am aware, Valeriy Sbitnev is the first to state in terms of wave-particle duality it is the aether which waves. He does this by figuring out "the oil in the bath plays a role of aether for the droplet that moves on this surface". Valeriy Sbitnev will be the first to publish an article stating de Broglie's hidden medium is the aether. In a double slit experiment, it is the aether which waves. Mpc755 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say "per discussion, still not OK; it's not even a published, and not particularly relevant". User Dicklyon (talk · contribs) did ([2]). Again, adress the article issues on the article talk page, not here. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize. The Valeriy Sbitnev article is out until published. Mpc755 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


hello, you left msg on my talk page. I am new here. The page i nominated of SD has been deleted. Can you suggest me some usefull links for contribution? Bordan man (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put a welcome template on your user talk page. There you will find all you need to know—and much more. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thats cOol, would be in touch with you whenever I get trouble Bordan man (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You are in trouble. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil/Archive. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but seriously[edit]

Where do I complain about the new Wikipedia font that I personally, in my opinion, think is awful? zzz (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Font size and style. - DVdm (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. zzz (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Reported: [3] and [4]. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct height for two complete orbits each Sidereal day[edit]

Dear DVdm,

I made a correction today about the height of a satellite that need to cover the earth twice each sidereal day. The reference that you added "[64] Samama, Nel (2008). Global Positioning: Technologies and Performance. John Wiley & Sons. p. 65. ISBN 0-470-24190-X., Extract of page 65" on page 65-66 says indeed that "The altitude of the satellites is around 20,200 km (with an orbital radius of approximitely 26,00 km), and the revolution period is 12h." However lets see what physics say about it.

In the chapter 5.3 Basics of Satellite systems (page169) of the book "Schiller, Jochen (2003). Mobile Communications. Pearson Education. p. 169. ISBN 0-321-12381-6" is mentioned that:

The attractive force Fg=m g (R/r)^2 and the centrifugal force Fc = m r w^2. Furthermore, to keep the satellite in a stable circular orbit those two forces must be equal. Thus Fg=Fc. Doing the math you get the equation that gives the distance r of a satellite from the center of earth. So r=(g R^2 / (2 pi f)^2 )^ (1/3) where Acceleration of gravity: g=9.81 m/s^2 , Earth's radium: R=6,370 km and pi=3,14... What is missing is the satellite's spinning frequency f.

So If you want a satellite to pass twice (2) over each Earth's point with inclination 0 degrees (lets say over the equator), if Earth would not spin the satellite should spin 2 times in 24 hours thus the frequency would be f=2/24h=1/12h as stated in the book and in the wikipedia article. However earth is spinning. Thus the satellite would have to spin one more time to pass twice over each point of the earth twice in 24 hours. So the correct frequency is f=3/24h=1/8h=1/(8*3600) sec.

Doing the math you get r=(9.81 * 6,370,000^2/ (2 * Pi * (1/(8*3600)) )^2 )^(1/3)=20298 km from the center of the earth. If you deduct from this value the radius of the Earth then the altitude is of the satellite is h=(20298-6370) km = 13928 km.

If in the formula or r=(g R^2 / (2 pi f)^2 )^ (1/3) you put for the satellite frequency f=1/12h you will get what the authors of your reference are stating. An easy way to realize that this is wrong is to think: If earth is not moving the satellite would need to have a frequency of 1/12h to "scan" the earth twice, since earth is spinning the satellite would need to spin around the earth more than two times to "scan" the planet twice.

Do you agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christostsiaras (talkcontribs) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Hi, Christostsiaras. Wikipedia is about about bringing what wp:reliable sources say, and our own wp:original research is strictly forbidden. I have restored—and explitly sourced—the original content ([5]). Whether I agree with the above or not, is entirely irrelevant for Wikipedia. If (and only if) you find a reliable source for your numbers, you can open a section on the article talk page (Talk:Global Positioning System) and propose to replace the current numbers—and their source—with the numbers—and their source— that you propose. Take some time to find out how Wikipedia works by following the links in the welcome message on your talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia World! - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok I hope that this is the right way to reply. If it is wrong I apologize. I understand your comment about a source but isn't a source if the mathematical calculation deliver the right numbers? I mean is science based on formulas and facts is not a debate. It is pretty strait forward what is the right number once you do the math following physics laws. I am not being ironic here but is like we need a source to state that 1+1=2. My correction was a valid numerical correction after doing the math. The way that I found this mistake is that we asked our students on a mobile communication's exercise course about this problem and someone replied that based on Wikipedia this is the right answer! It is not nice if a student find wrong information in wikipedia. The reason of asking for a source on such mistakes, which you might know that is not possible to find it since someone should write a new book, is what makes wikipedia an unreliable "source" itself. Christostsiaras (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is (almost) the right way to reply. I just have added some colons to indent your message smile.
Mathematical calculations are ok in the most trivial cases only. See wp:CALC. Something like 1+1=2 would be OK. Or, if a source would say that there are at least 52 weeks of 7 days in a year, then per wp:CALC we can write that there are at least 364 days in a year. Now, please do read the entire policy article wp:No original research. What you propose here is a schoolbook example of original research. We really need a solid source for such calculations. That's how it goes here. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well is not a school book example, the formulas that I provided are on a University-level book (c.f. my ref in the initial message on your talk) with the right formulas. Those formulas needed here are Newton's law for circle motion, is not rocket science, is really fundamental knowledge. So since I cannot find a book with the correct calculation, would it make any sense to update the post and also provide all the calculations starting from Newton's law which is undebatable and generate the correct numerical value?Christostsiaras (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't make sense either. See also wp:SYNTH, in the same policy article. If your numbers are correct, then surely you will be able to find a solid source—see wp:BURDEN. Trust me, what you have in mind is indeed a schoolbook example of wp:OR. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle[edit]


I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Effect on biological systems of heavy water[edit]

Dear DVdm, the text which I canceled is without reliable sources with impact factor. There is additional information in Deuterium-depleted water: For this text have not reliable sources. It can be removed. Which is "Institute for the Biology of Ageing, located in Moscow"? "It has been proposed that low doses of heavy water can slow the aging process by helping the body resist oxidative damage via the kinetic isotope effect[clarification needed].[27] A team at the Institute for the Biology of Ageing, located in Moscow, conducted an experiment to determine the effect of heavy water on longevity using fruit flies and found that while large amounts were deadly, smaller quantities increased lifespans by up to 30%.[28][clarification needed]" --Analiticus (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And I have fixed my reformatting mistake on the article talk page. See [6]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction[edit]

Hello. You wrote: "3600 hits for "FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction", 26000 hits for "Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction". Let's keep the original". But the original name in science and known in society is the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction. A quick searce throws up a paper from 1941, in the prestigious American Physical Society, 73 years ago, with the name "FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction", see for "Relativity, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction, and Quantum Theory", in Rev. Mod. Phys. 13, 197 – Published 1 July 1941.

And another in 1920, 94 years ago, from a significant scientist's letter in 'Nature':

"Nature 105, 200-200 (15 April 1920) | doi:10.1038/105200a0 The FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction Theory

HORACE H. POOLE 'IN the discussion on relativity at the Royal Society on February 5 (NATURE, February 12), Mr. Jeans stated that the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction theory presented...' " See

and two recent academic articles: 1.University of Oxford's Harvey R Brown with a 2001 paper: "The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis" See

2. University of Cambridge's Andrew Warwick with a 1991 paper: "On the role of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis in the development of Joseph Larmor's electronic theory of matter" in

So the correct and historic name should not be changed to suit something to do with Goodle-search statistics. It was known by this name before Google was invented. Google and Wikipedia are there to help us learn about the world, they are not supposed to change things like the name of FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. And anyway, Google will still find it under the correct name (FitzGerald-Lorentz), and the statistics will catch up.

Can you please change it back? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

....Donn300 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And similarly of course for the same term in the article on "Length contraction". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

....Donn300 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(outside opinion) I'm afraid your argument based on the papers cited would be WP:SYNTHESIS. More importantly, the relevant policy states that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". Extending the search engine test a little, I got:
6610 hits for
1480 hits for
1120 hits for
872 hits for
624 hits for
Paradoctor (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And that's Google scholar. Yes, Donn300, I guess we better keep the status-quo. By the way, re your remark "It was known by this name before Google was invented", Google books produces books that were written before Google was invented. This one dates 1984, and this one is 1968. Check it out with Google books L-FG c versus Google books FG-L c. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)