User talk:Brews ohare

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres 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.

History of science section in centrifugal force

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, [1], [2]), 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. SBHarris 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Steven: I find your remarks confusing. Marsden provides a formula for the Euler force for a rotating frame as m r × 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 Wikipedia. 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.

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.154.169 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Centrifugal force

In this[3] 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've done the math; it's time some others did too. Brews ohare (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please be civil. Besides, I think the issue at hand can be easily resolved without doing any math. See my entry on Talk: Centrifugal force

What is Wiki stance on related articles? (answer)

Answering your question:

Wikipedia:Summary style is the guideline.

Definition has examples.

Awesome illustrations on your user page, BTW.

--Jtir (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lab centrifuge

Hi there

I was wondering about your latest edits. Is a 10 m centrifuge accurately described as a "laboratory centrifuge"? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:44, 15 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 think Centrifuge might be a better spot for it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this material to Centrifuge. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tide

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:

1. 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
2. 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)

Please answer in this page, if you want to answer. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

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)

Inertial frame of reference

Congratulations for your work in Inertial frame of reference :-)

...is defined as: An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is a straight line.

Isn't "constant speed" missing? 189.6.140.252 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about parabolic dish and coriolis effect

Hi Brews,

about a month and a half ago you posted a question on my talk page. I rarely visit wikipedia anymore, I just happened to notice the posting. Please visit my talk page to read my response. --Cleonis | Talk 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frame of reference

Hi Paolo: It appears that you have drifted away from Frame of reference to discuss other articles. Maybe it's too much to say you are satisfied with Frame of reference, but are going to let matters rest? Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 4 August 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)

Space archeology

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)

Hi there: This is a work in progress. Please allow a little time for it to flesh out. Brews ohare (talk) 22:27, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Analytical dynamics

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)

Wikipedia:Editor review/-The Bold Guy-

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".

Anyway, I think you have done a lot of positive work here on Wikipedia. Don't waste time fighting stupid disputes :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical mechanics in planar curvilinear coordinates

I have moved the article, see here:

Classical mechanics in planar curvilinear coordinates

I think we need to put less emphasis on centrifugal force and just focus on classical mechanics. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Opinion

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

nu to theta

Hi. Please don't forget talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion#Symbol for Angular Displacement. Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

I changed the figure. It is not mathematically exact, but I hope it will do. Brews ohare (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you drawing.

See however Talk:Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Image:Anomalies.PNG. Bo Jacoby (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Continuation behind the scenes

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)

Mediation requested

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Speed of light, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Speed of light. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Displacement Current

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)

Absolute time and space

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)

I modified this article somewhat, adding some historical context. That led to modification of mass; it never ends. Brews ohare (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of free space

Hi Brews,

You seem to believe both of the following:

[A] Free space is by definition a medium in which the speed of light is c₀, the permittivity is ε₀, etc.

[B] 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 [4]. 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. [5] David Tombe (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin, what are you up to?

I would prefer to have any discussion on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Space archaeology

I have nominated Space archaeology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia: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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Aether

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 [6]. 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 [7]. 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

I just don't know what you did here: [8]. If you could restore it, that would be neat.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong?

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)

Edit war on Mass–energy equivalence

Hi Steven: Apparently User:Likebox insists on writing Mass–energy equivalence to suit themselves, and repeatedly deletes cited material. They already have a reputation for such activity. How can it be prevented or ameliorated? Brews ohare (talk) 04:22, 13 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. SBHarris 07:37, 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)

redshift

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)

Perhaps you could outline for me appropriate documentation to learn how to use this approach to figures? Brews ohare (talk) 19:11, 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)

I moved this conversation from my page, just to keep it in one place. sanpaz (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Inertial Path

Brews, I conceded to Woodstone that I had made a mistake when I told you that ${\ddot {r}}=0$ 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 ${\ddot {r}}=0$ 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 ${\ddot {r}}=0$ 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)

a comment on your drawing

See Talk:Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#File:Anomalies.PNG. The drawing on eccentric anomaly is perhaps better? Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Centrifugal force

I did not realize that there were so many centrifugal force articles (disambig, reactive, fictitious, plus just regular old centrifugal force). Why not make Lagrangian centrifugal force its own article, in keeping with the rest of them? That would avoid the problems of undue weight. Rracecarr (talk) 16:05, 9 June 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)

I have asked for you to be blocked for violating 3RR after we both warned you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye

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)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Repeatedly inserting apparently non-standard material into a basic physics article, at Wavelength, per this complaint at WP:AN3. Such changes require consensus, and should not be forced into the article by edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 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).

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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 Wikipedia. I'd say my record of contributions to Wikipedia, 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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 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 Wikipedia"

Brews, you refer in your unblock request to your "record of contributions to Wikipedia". 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 Wikipedia by actually making constructive comments to subject matter instead of name calling and aspersions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way, as that's how you always react to my advice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

Perhaps you do now. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispersion relation

Hi Brews, I put some comments regarding your recent addition of a new section on: Talk:Dispersion relation#Dispersion and propagation of general waveforms. I am having a kind of writers block at the moment (regarding main space), otherwise I could have done part of these proposed changes myself. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your four queries about rotation

Brews, let's look at your four queries,

1. magnetism appears to be always linked to rotation, e.g. via the gyromagnetic ratio
2. rotation about an axis cannot be maintained to arbitrary radii without violating relativity
3. 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)
4. 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)

ANI

Hello, Brews ohare. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wavelength War

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)

I put my comments on the SOL Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

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.

(Beginning at the current last frame:

O----------o

O ---------o

O  --------o

O   -------o

Thanks, Pecos Joe (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pecos Joe: Unfortunately my skills do not extend this far. I think Dicklyon could help you. Brews ohare (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light

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)

Your antipathy is showing. Brews ohare (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gauge theory

Hi -- I thought you might be interested in the recent activity in Gauge theory and Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory. Both articles could still use work. --76.167.77.165 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for declaring an edit war at Speed of light in this edit. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 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).

Brews ohare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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. Mangojuice^talk 06:16, 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 [tautology] 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)

Can one or both of you explain how you see this definition of the speed of light relating to either Tautology (rhetoric) or Tautology (logic) or some other definition? What exactly are you saying is the tautology here? Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 16 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/t must 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)

OK, if you ever see that statement, call it a tautology. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 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)

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. [9]. 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)

Ping!

Hi Brews, I have a request for you at Talk:Wavelength#Figure showing interference. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this figure to use the same vertical scale in all panels. Brews ohare (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light article

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 [10] and also on Vacuum permittivity, where your "contributions" made it to WP:AN [11]. 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 [12]. 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 made in any venue at all like this. 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)