User talk:86.83.155.44

D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - [1] - and in nl:GTL8 on 3 & 4 by [2], as: [3] of HGA in The Hague. For QED see: [4] or [5] and [6] besides [7] plus: Bibliography.

Semi-Static Archive

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

IQ	This user's Intelligence Quotient was roughly between 160 and 170.

This user is a member of the Streetcars WikiProject

Sysyphus to Ummagumma was still Поклонник by +> Pink Floyd

This user knows that there is no dark side of the moon really — matter of fact it's all dark.

40pxThis user wishes you were here.

This user is a fan of Genesis in all of its forms. Supper's Ready!

This user wants everyone to know that the Collectors (album) is never been classified as Caravan (album)

Regarding your edits to Light rail:

Your recent edit to Light rail (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Check: Dutch → nl:Gebruiker:86.83.155.44 from: ing. D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng C.L. with [8] and [9] or [10] → 86.83.155.44 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stale From the list of town tramway systems with two book references:
  

Gragt, Frits van der. - 1968. "Europe's Greatest Tramway Network" (No ISBN). Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Borgdorff, Ing. D.A. and mr.Dr. H.D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) - 2000. "HTM Light Rail Vehicle GTL8" (ISBN 90-9013935-4). The Hague, Netherlands: Association HTV.

• For Norwegia see family-name User page: no:Bruker:DA Borgdorff
• For Spanish see User talk page: es:Usuario Discusión:86.83.155.44
• For Portugal see User talk page: pt:Usuário Discussão:86.83.155.44
• For Basque see also User page: eu:Lankide Eztabaida:86.83.155.44
• For France see User talk page: fr:Discussion Utilisateur:86.83.155.44
• For Finland see User talk page: fi:Keskustelu Käyttäjästä:86.83.155.44
• For Romania see User talk page too: ro:Discuţie Utilizator:86.83.155.44

• Multi Famam Conscientiam Pauci Verentur. Ut Sementum Feceris Ita Metes. Ora Et Labora. Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit. Virtute Nil Præstantius Nil Pulchrius. Omnia Vincit Amor. Præclarum Quidam Veritas. - dAb - FRIEN.

PS: Ich bin ehemalig Haupt-Entwerfer der de:Straßenbahn Den Haag - Ingenieur de:Quantenelektrodynamik und de:Leistungselektronik = VDE: 546934 & 28878 - VDI: 19958957 - KIVI/NIRIA: 6638 - COITI: 1940. Immer Achtung: 86.83.155.44

• Id (bijvoorbeeld ISBN-nummer) [?] Status Boektitel Auteur [?] Gebieden [?]

ISBN 9789080586512 Register en Beknopte Genealogie Borgdorff - Borgdorff, D.A. [NL] ISBN 9789080586529 Materiële en Gravitationele Elektromagnetische Energie - Vallée, René-Louis - Borgdorff, D.A. (ed.) [NL] \\// ISBN 9789080586536 Parenteel van Andreas Borgdorff (geboren in 1702) - Borgdorff, Dorus André - (m.m.v.) Borgdorff, Jan [NL]

Van der Pol oscillator

D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). For QED see: [11] or [12], and [13] - PS: de niet-lineair systeem Van der Pol relaxatie-vergelijking is hier op wikipedia onvindbaar, dus bij de engelse voor zo'n groot Nederlander als volgt te lezen:

• Balthasar van der Pol & J van der Mark (1928): The Heartbeat considered as a Relaxation oscillation, and an Electrical Model of the Heart.
  Philips Magazine Suppl. No. 6 pp 763–775
• Van der Pol & Bremmer: Operational Calculus. Cambridge 1964
• Selected Scientific Papers: North-Holland Publishing Company 1960 - 2 vol's

In dynamics, the Van der Pol oscillator (named for Dutch physicist Balthasar van der Pol) is a type of nonconservative oscillator with nonlinear damping. It evolves in time according to the second order differential equation:

${d^{2}x \over dt^{2}}-\mu (1-x^{2}){dx \over dt}+x=0$

where x is the position coordinate — which is a function of the time t, and μ is a scalar parameter indicating the strength of the nonlinear damping. It can be proven via Liénard's Theorem that there exists a limit cycle for the undriven Van der Pol oscillator, thus making it an example of a Liénard system.

Eén en ander in verband met mogelijk oscillatie-soort relaxatiefunctie vragen. D.A. Borgdorff - 86.83.155.44 7 mrt 2008 19:21 (CET)

Gelukkig dat wetenschap, logica, zindelijk denken, en gezond verstand onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn. Thomass 7 mrt 2008 22:48 (CET) Nogmaals mijn grote waardering. → [14] & [15] •

PS: Relevante links: http://www.ovcentraal.nl/nederland/tram.php.

Van ir. J.W. Sluiter overzicht Spoor & Tramwegen: ISBN 90-5345-224-9

Oud elektrodynamisch hoofdontwikkelaar-ingenieur dubbelgeleed HTM GTL8-trammaterieel: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 11:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References

• Besides QED → [16] and for tubes: [17] and [18]
• Volgens de meestal gebruikte formule om beslissingen te creëren, uitgaande van het morfogenetische veld: $x_{n+1}=A\,x_{n}\,(\mathrm {mod} \,M)\,$. O/A.: [19] - [20]
• Dit is ook te zien aan de Schrödinger-operatoren in de plaats-ruimte:

$(xp-px)\psi =x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}(x\psi )=x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}\psi -x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi =i\hbar \psi$.

Deze formule laat onomstotelijk zien, dat wij niet alles mogen begrijpen, daar de belangrijkste parameters niet in bra-kets zijn getransformeerd, welke voor de zon in onzeker sneeuwwit licht zouden veranderen.

• Een en ander berust op het onzekerheidsprincipe van Heisenberg.

About the 'De Broglie wavelength' equations

We can get Debroglie relation from the equation of Einstein and Plank:
$E=hf=pc$
Where E is the energy possesed by an arbitrary photon relative to an intertial frame of reference, h is planck constant, f is its frequency in that frame.
$p={\frac {hf}{c}}={\frac {h}{\lambda }}$
Where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the photon. We can then postulate that every moving body will have certain wavelength. The equation is experimentally proven to be correct for every body with non-zero rest mass. Similarly,
$f={\frac {pc}{h}}={\frac {mc^{2}}{h}}$
Where m is the relativistic mass of that photon. We can again postulate that every body with non-zero rest mass will have the frequency showing on the above equation. Since
$v_{p}=f\lambda$ where $v_{p}$ is the phase velocity. $v_{p}={\frac {c^{2}}{v}}$ Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass. Thljcl 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your math is at $pc=mc^{2}$. I assume you got at it by setting $E=pc$ equal to $E=mc^{2}$, but the first is the total energy of a massless particle, the second the total energy of a massive particle at rest.

Part of what was so unexpected about de Broglie's hypothesis was that he took equations for a massless particle and played with them until found something new that's true for massive particles. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work that way. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For a particle with non-zero rest mass, when its momentum is zero relative to an inertial frame of reference, we find that

$E=m_{0}c^{2}$

Where E is the total energy, $m_{0}$is the rest mass of the particle, c is the speed of light in vacuum. When it possesses momentum in the same frame,

$E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$$=\gamma m_{0}c^{2}$

$p=\gamma m_{0}v$

$\gamma =\;{\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}$

When v=0, $\gamma$=1,

$E=m_{0}\;c^{2}$ Classically, we define momentum as a product of mass and velocity. We can still use this definition. However,mass of a particular body is no longer a constant but is frame-dependent and is a function of its velocity. Whatever frame it is, its rest mass will be the same. Therefore, many or most scientists today would like to regard rest mass is the only definition of mass because variable mass may lead to a confusion. For me, I would still use both frame-dependent mass and invariant mass. In my maths, m always means relativistic mass. I will use $m_{0}$ denotes rest mass. Therefore,

$E=mc^{2}$

$E_{k}\;=(m-m_{0})c^{2}=(\gamma -1)m_{0}\;c^{2}$

Where $E_{k}$ denotes kinetic energy. For a particle with zero rest mass such as photon, its kinetic energy is ill-defined. The expression $E=mc^{2}$ is different from $E_{0}\;=m_{0}\;c^{2}$ where $E_{0}$ is a particle rest energy. I use E to denotes total energy. Wherever there's energy, there's always a certain amount of mass associate with it, though there may not be the rest energy. Certainly, photon has zero rest mass. It carries both momentum and energy.

$p=mc$

$E=hf=mc^{2}=pc$

Since many people dislike the term of relativistic mass, there's still an another way to derive the expression $E=pc$. That is from $E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$ Let $m_{0}=0$,

$E=pc$

Therefore, the derivation of De Broglie is correct with his own postulate. He postulated that all body with non-zero rest mass also have wave-particle duality in nature just as photon does. He personally thinks that nature seems to love symmetry. Now, we discover that there is a violation of symmetery in weak interaction.

Thljcl 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion made on 25 March 2007 is still incorrect, Thljcl. You said, "Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass," which simply is not true, even by your own ``derivation. You state that the frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy (including rest mass), but yet your last post assumes $m_{0}=0$ within the derivation -- so you've only shown that the frequency of a body with zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy. This is obviously true because the de Broglie relation contains the momentum term $p$, which from the equation

$E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$,

which you state above, clearly has no dependence on rest mass $m_{0}$, as you previously asserted. Dchristle 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Article "Phase velocity" they use the total energy instead of just the kinetic one to define the "frequency of matter waves". I don't know, what is correct, but I think the wrong one should be corrected, maybe including some motivation why it should be the total or just the kinetic energy.

• René-Louis Vallée: L'énergie électromagnétique matérielle et gravitationnelle, Masson & Cie, éditeurs - Paris, 1971 — traduction libre par : D.A. Borgdorff, relativement: "hypothése d'existence des milieux énergétiques et d'une valeur limite supérieure du champ électrique". Ibidem via la SEPED – Paris, 1978 – Voir aussi: La théorie Synergétique Template:Fr et [21] → 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Transposed replications

From here with title "Thanks again" in resumption from D.A. Borgdorff and Ccfr: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Woodwalker, I herewith like to really thank you again for supporting me in the astounding a days long block up from Oscar, whose arbitrarily controversial knocking completely surprised me awe into silent awareness. So, then I have to reconsider my decision to write again, in spite of rehabilitation by the forum, the gracious action of Ellywa included. Astonishing ..., but as usual with all regards from D.A. Borgdorff, e.i. etc. by fixed-ADSL-IP: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ... PS: Just before his blocking at 14:46, out of nowhere came a socalled Anon-IP: 129.125.157.73 at 14:36 reverting (with comment) my edits in own TP, upon which Oscar 10 minutes later responded, curiously -- see history of those pages. Above-mentioned IP is from R-University Groningen, and supposed only used to tackle me I don't like this to sort further out. With excuses for my CE/AE-spelling errors, truly Yours: D.A. Borgdorff, by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Estimable Sir; I'm sorry to disturb you again, but yet an other block up now from mrs. Moira came unexpectedly after my complaints being thrown on a sort of blacklist by abovementioned CEO. I've tried to reach the - by mr. De Roo recommended - IRC-channel, but my typed reaction unfortunately didn't came through and I was even banned there after accusation of lurking while trying to contact for explanation again and again and onwards. So I'll have to report it here again with - in the mean time - utmost amazement, wondering about the level of arguments affected in numbers. With best regards I again remain sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff from number IP: 86.83.155.44 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear mr. Borgdorff, I already discussed your last block on wiki.nl with mrs. Moira. I am afraid she was rather uncompromisable in the matter, due to the large amount of what she and others call "useless edits" from your side. Fact is that anonimous edits have to be checked on wikipedia, and that's not very entertaining work I can assure. So I would like to suggest that you stop editing talk pages and start editing articles; or just open an account so that your edits don't bother the team that checks anonimous edits any longer.

When somebody does not show his or her name at the chat that is considered "lurking" and unpolite, because others are having confidential talk there and do show their names. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that you were "booted" from the chat.

I hope you will at least think about opening a real account because it will make life easier for everyone! Kind regards and yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: For message Mwpnl, see under blocking mediation. — D.A. Borgdorff - Electrodynamics & Power Electronics. — 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The nature of mass as a vortex of space-time

I found also the article a little bit confusing, excessively technique, so I introduced a better philosophical beginning to explain people what truly equivalence means: that we cannot distinguish gravitational forces and masses from acceleration. Thus the universe according to Einstein is in perpetual acceleration, as the forces and masses become under the 'strong' principle of equivalence (which Einstein favored in his seminal works and letters) accelerated flows of lineal and cyclical movement. I believe the beginning is not clear about the essence of this principle, which is - as all Relativity - simple in its appareance but with deep philosophical implications that change our vision of the Universe: an eternally accelerating one, seems today proved by the observation that space accelerates between galaxies and black holes. Where black holes are the most massive vortex, accelerating at c = light-speed.

Though the introduction was reverted and I wont place it again, I believe it is not clear at all the essence of the principle, which is the fact that acceleration and force are homologous concepts. I left your original introduction, though I think the equivalence between acceleration and gravitational force should rather be the first sentence and now is not clear. What I reposted, and please do not erase it as it is new material, that doesn't replace anything but is very essential to our modern understanding of relativity and mass, is a concept which has been around for a century among relativists, albeit poorly formalized, so: the nature of mass as an accelerated vortex, that is equivalence between cyclical acceleration and mass. Mass as a vortex of space-time is the relativist alternative to the concept of mass sponsored by quantum physicists as produced by particle-quanta. Since Einstein, the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time curving the acceleration of gravity into a cyclical movement ("time curves space") must be included in any serious encyclopedia that deals with all aspects of relativity. In my view perhaps because there are 10 quantum physicists (so: more jobs) for each relativist, the articles on relativity need some further reworking and extension. Please do not erase a mass part. If you want to change it, let us discuss how to include the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time, I will include quotes and citations if I have sometime to go to the library and get them.
Thanks Homocion (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Ccfr: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary translocation

Dear and learned Bob, with hesitation herewith disturbing you, I will have to draw your attention to the fact I already have been replying your questions three times, although none of the involved six administrators published their identity and/or c.v. nor even answered or responded equally, with the exception of mr. Robotje, who in the meantime abandoned, so to be assumed that they apparently feel elevated superiorly above your mediation. Considering the fourth more and absurd blocking again, I'd have to conclude too much opposition and class-justice to take seriously into account a sufficient and proper or sound judgement, which (but) consequently ought to be reserved. In addtion: watch- or black-lists, or such warning-templates are totally incorrect, and so the like have to be removed to erase, before I 'll start to write again. With utmost regards and esteeming sincerely yours D.A. Borgdorff from: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrospection to blocking mediation

Beste Bob, nu maar even in het Nederlands: bedankt voor uw ondersteuning. Door al die rare acties wordt ik nu zelfs verdacht uit onverdachte hoek. Waar gaat dit in vredesnaam nog over.? Hoe kun je nu nog representatief en rustig werken bij voortdurende verdenkingen of verdachtmaking met blokkades, die het schrijven en bijhorende discussies als met Mdd of Tom blijven verstoren. Ik moet me maar telkenmale -- als ware ik crimineel -- blijven verantwoorden en daar heb ik géén zin en tijd meer voor. Als dat huidige blok niet snel wordt opgeheven, zal ik me moeten beraden op andere stappen wegens bijv. laster en andere overtredingen van recent bekend gemaakte internetverplichtingen. Vorenstaande doelt slechts op geconstateerde feiten. Alsnog hartelijke groet in hoge achting: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bob, because you have not reacted to above requests to abolish the blocking in direction with involved administrators,.. I deleted the last part of my objections, and will continue to proceed -- but for the fact of duration of time too long. With best regards, D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - etc. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Evermore clean slates

• • Since I do not appreciate my full name being available on Wikipedia I removed it. Everyone can look up my real name on the internet, it's not that hard to find. This however, does not mean that I want it published, with a link to my photograph, without my permission and knowledge. Mwpnl (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak auxiliaries

Estimable and very learned Dolledre; sooner than expected I will have to ask you for some kind of blocking mr. Baas and mr. Robotje c.s. from editing -- if possible -- my pages ever again. Your nice picture of La Brugeoise reminding me of many nearly long forgotten years visiting the BN Consortium on behalf of HTM tramway vehicles for inspection and approval as CEO, i.e. e.g. nl:GTL8 & PCC streetcars. Owing to the present infirmities, I will unfortunately have to approach you here to accomplish written matters. On the same way I did post a message on Bob.v.R's page by exception too. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully your D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng by: 86.83.155.44 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Die nuwegnominatie kun je vergeten, het is in principe not done om artikelen uit andermans gebruikersnaamruimte te nomineren voor verwijdering. Josq 25 jan 2008 15:55 (CET)

Formulación matemática

La dinámica y propiedades básicas de una teoría de campo depende de la forma seleccionada para el es:lagrangiano. La selección de lagrangiano depende de las simetrías del grupo de gauge y del hecho de que la teoría describa adecuadamente la interacción entre fermiones cargados. En de una teoría que describa campos fermiónicos interactuando mediante un campo de gaue bosónico asociado a partículas sin masa (fotones) cuyo grupo de gauge es conmutativo el lagrangiano de partida puede tomarse como:

${\mathcal {L}}=i{\bar {\psi }}\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\psi -e{\bar {\psi }}\gamma _{\mu }A^{\mu }\psi -m{\bar {\psi }}\psi -{\frac {1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\,$

Donde el campo ferminónico $\ \psi$ y su adj. Dirac ${\bar {\psi }}$ son los campos que representan partículas de carga eléctrica, específicamente el electrón y los campos del positrón representados como espinor Dirac. La parte del lagrangiano que contiene el tensor de campo electromagnético describe la evolución libre del es:campo electromagnético, mientras que la ecuación Dirac con la es:derivada es:covariante de gauge describe la evolución libre de los campos del electrón y del positrón así como su interacción con el es:campo electromagnético.

Ecuaciones de movimiento

La es:ecuación de movimiento o ecuaciones de evolución temporal de la QED pueden obtenerse mediante las ecuaciones de Euler-Lagrange del es:lagrangiano de la teoría. Insertando ese lagrangiano en las es:ecuaciones de Euler-Lagrange se obtiene la ecuación de evolución temporal de la teoría:

$\partial _{\mu }\left({\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial (\partial _{\mu }\psi )}}\right)-{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial \psi }}=0\quad {\mbox{con}}{\begin{cases}\partial _{\mu }\left({\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial (\partial _{\mu }\psi )}}\right)=\partial _{\mu }\left(i{\bar {\psi }}\gamma ^{\mu }\right)\\{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial \psi }}=-e{\bar {\psi }}\gamma _{\mu }A^{\mu }-m{\bar {\psi }}\end{cases}}$

Colocando los dos términos dentro de la ecuación de Euler-Lagrange resulta finalmente la siguiente ecuación de evolución para el campo fermiónico:

$i\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\psi -m\psi =e\gamma _{\mu }A^{\mu }\psi \,$

El miembro de la izquierda es precisamente la es:ecuación de Dirac y el término de la derecha representa la interacción con el es:campo electromagnético.

Las mismas ecuaciones de Euler-Lagrange, aplicadas ahora al campo $A^{\mu }$, permiten encontrar las ecuaciones de evolución del campo electromagnético:

$\partial _{\nu }\left({\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial (\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu })}}\right)-{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial A_{\mu }}}=0\quad {\mbox{con}}{\begin{cases}\partial _{\nu }\left({\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial (\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu })}}\right)=\partial _{\nu }\left(\partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu }\right)\\{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {L}}}{\partial A_{\mu }}}=-e{\bar {\psi }}\gamma ^{\mu }\psi \end{cases}}$

Y la ecuación de evolución del campo electromagnético resulta finalmente:

$\partial _{\nu }F^{\nu \mu }=e{\bar {\psi }}\gamma ^{\mu }\psi \,$

Donde el segundo miembro puede ser interpretado como la es:densidad de corriente asociada al campo fermiónico.

Reglas de Feynman

Para dar cuenta de todos los efectos cuánticos, es necesario reemplazar las componentes de los campos en las anteriores ecuaciones diferenciales por operadores autoadjuntos interpretables como genuinos operadores cuánticos. En general eso lleva a unos sistemas de ecuaciones que no sabemos como integrar exactamente, pero que admiten un tratamiento perturbativo, descomponiendo el operador de evolución temporal ${\hat {U}}_{QED}=\exp(it{\hat {H}}_{QED})$ en series de potencias o serie perturbativa.

El cálculo de cada término de la serie anterior puede realizarse de manera casi automática con la auda de los llamados diagramas de Feynman, a los que se puede asociar unas reglas de Feynman. La precisión del cálculo depende de cuantos términos se consideran e la serie perturbativa anterior.

Renormalización

Un serio problema con las reglas de Feynman es que tal que fueron establecidas por primera vez conducen a diagramas y términos divergentes en la serie perturbativa, es decir, términos no finitos que echan a perder el cálculo de los términos finitos. Obviamente todos los resultados físicos son finitos y esos términos divergentes del cálculo no son observables en la realidad. La renormalización es un conjunto de reglas adicionales que interpretan qué relación existe entre los términos calculados y los términos medibles en la realidad y generan reglas adicionales que permiten "normalizar" los cálculos y garantizar que se producen resultados numéricos finitos comparables con la realidad mediante experimento.

Es conocido que el hecho de que una teoría cuántica sea una es:teoría de campo de gauge le confiere la propiedad de ser renormalizable, en el sentido de que existe un conjunto de reglas adicionales que permiten eliminar términos divergentes no observables y dar lugar a resultados finitos.

... verificabilidad y notificación ...

Teoría científica, ing° D.A. Borgdorff em. COITI via: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 12:33 22 feb 2008 (UTC)

Seguir el pulso

Estimado Don T.: muchas gracias por la ayuda a favor de opinión con respecto al antear el ambiente para desbloquear mi asunto. Cordial saludo: D.A. Borgdorff - ing° eléctrico recurso: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:48 9 jun 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Dmitri Nikolaj and estimated mr. Van Schie: I herewith like to really thank you for your helpfull support in the case of my recent astonishing blocking up from further editing again. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - MASc. by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cfr.: Colleagues = Celloman - Rikipedia - Lidewij - Balko - Art - Edo - Sonty - Koolstra - Londenp - Richardkiwi - Diogenes - Itsme - Drirpeter - Mastertim -Tûkkã - B.Dijkstra - WDV - Wikix - Mtthshksm - Erik Warmelink - JAM. → Regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking probably being supposed to must have so to be stopped definitely in this continuously handling of matters regarding my person. Unfortunately: in the moment can't see it differently. Esteemed regards with thanks again. As usual: D.A. Borgdorff - from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear dAb, we're still trying to get rid of that ridiculous block... don't loose faith too soon. Regards, sincerely, DTBone (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage Tom Meijer: "Helaas" - 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Monopole Maxwell's equations

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism relate the electric and magnetic fields to the motions of electric charges. The standard form of the equations provide for an electric charge, but posit no magnetic charge. Except for this, the equations are symmetric under interchange of electric and magnetic field. The fact that the electric and magnetic fields can be written in a symmetric way is specific to the fact that space is three-dimensional. When the equations of electromagnetism are extrapolated to other dimensions, the magnetic field is described as a rank 2 antisymmetric tensor, while the electric field remains a true vector. In dimensions other than 3, these two objects do not have the same number of components. In fact, symmetric equations can be written when all charges are zero, and this is how the wave equation is derived.

Fully symmetric equations can also be written if one allows for the possibility of "magnetic charges" analogous to electric charges.[22] With the inclusion of a variable for these magnetic charges, say $\ \rho _{m}$, there will also be a "magnetic current" variable in the equations, $\ \mathbf {j} _{m}$. The extended Maxwell's equations are as follows, in cgs units:

Name	Without Magnetic Monopoles	With Magnetic Monopoles
Gauss's law:	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}$
Gauss' law for magnetism:	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =4\pi \rho _{m}$
Faraday's law of induction:	$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}$	$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{m}$
Ampère's law (with Maxwell's extension):	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}$	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}$
Note: For the equations in nondimensionalized form, remove the factors of c.

The Lorentz force becomes

$\mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {B} \right)+q_{m}\left(\mathbf {B} -{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {E} \right)$

In SI units, magnetic charge conventionally has units of T·m² (although some authors use different conventions), See, for example: arXiv:physics, eqn (4), in which the unit of magnetic monopole differs by a factor of μ₀, compared to the version from Jackson 1999: Classical Electrodynamics (*) — used in this article, and Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law take the following form:

$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =\rho _{e}/\epsilon _{0}$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =\rho _{m}$
$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {j} _{m}$	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} =\mu _{0}\epsilon _{0}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+\mu _{0}\mathbf {j} _{e}$
$\mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} \right)+(q_{m}/\mu _{0})\left(\mathbf {B} -\mathbf {v} \times (\mathbf {E} /c^{2})\right)$

If magnetic charges do not exist, or if they exist but where they are not present in a region, then the new variables are zero, and the extended equations reduce to the conventional equations of electromagnetism such as $\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0$. Classically, the question is "Why does the magnetic charge always seem to be zero?"

• (*) Jackson 1999. For Maxwell's equations, see section 6.11, equation 6.150,

page 273. For the Lorentz force law, see page 290, exercise 6.17(a)

Transposed by D.A. Borgdorff ↔ 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

BF model field theory

The BF model is a topological field theory, which when quantized, becomes a topological quantum field theory. BF stands for background field. B and F, as can be seen below, are also the variables appearing in the Lagrangian of the theory, which is helpful as a mnemonic device.

We have a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold M, a gauge group G, which has as "dynamical" fields a two-form B taking values in the adjoint representation of G, and a connection form A for G.

The action is given by

$S=\int _{M}K[\mathbf {B} \wedge \mathbf {F} ]$

where K is an invariant nondegenerate bilinear form over ${\mathfrak {g}}$ (if G is semisimple, the Killing form will do) and F is the curvature form

$\mathbf {F} \equiv d\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {A} \wedge \mathbf {A}$

This action is diffeomorphically invariant and gauge invariant. Its Euler-Lagrange equations are

$\mathbf {F} =0$ (no curvature)

and

$d_{\mathbf {A} }B=0$ (the covariant exterior derivative of B is zero).

In fact, it is always possible to gauge away any local degrees of freedom, which is why it is called a topological field theory.

However, if M is topologically nontrivial, A and B can have nontrivial solutions globally.

In- and external links

• Spin foam
• Background field method
• Quantum field theory

  

• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-fall2000/qg2.2.html

Duplicated by: D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also advanced: http://www.eburon.nl/elementary_process_theory

De Broglie's parodox

Quantum Mechanics considers the duality wave-particle through the interpretation proposed by de Broglie. The diffraction has been detected for the elementary particles, as electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules. Considering these experiments, we show here that there is a grave incompatibility between this solution of Quantum Mechanics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the light is replaced by protons, and Michelson’s interferometer replaced by a crystal.

• MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FOR PROTONS

When an electron crosses a crystal, it can suffer diffraction according to the Bragg’s relation, which is: nλ = 2.d. senφ .... [2.1]

Davisson, Germer and Thomson made experiments with φ = 65^o , d = 0,91Å , and electrons with kinetic energy 54eV.

Through the expression 2.1 we get: λ= 1,65 Å .... [2.2]

The wavelength of de Broglie, for the electrons with energy 54eV used at the Davisson-Germer-Thomson experiment, is:

λ = h/p = 6,6x10-34j-s/4,0x10-24kg-m/s = 1,65 Å .... [2.3]

Electrons with kinetic energy 54eV have approximately a speed 4.000km/s. As we see, the postulate of de Broglie gets the same result of the Bragg’s relation. According to the authors Robert Eisberg & Robert Resnick[1], the electron suffers diffraction into the crystal because “there is a constructive interference of waves spread by the periodic arrangement of the atoms in the planes of the crystal ”. So, this constructive interference is a consequence of: d=0,91Å within the crystal, and the electron’s speed 4.000km/s.

In the experiments of diffraction electrons are used with speed 4.000km/s. But instead of using electrons we can replace them by protons. As the proton has a mass 2.000 times greater than the electron, then de Broglie’s wavelength of a proton with speed 2km/s will be 1,65Å. Then let us imagine Michelson-Morley experiment, made with a proton with speed 32km/s.

We will consider the Sun as a reference at rest. And in order to simplify the explanation, let's consider that the Earth's translation velocity around the Sun is 30km/s. So the crystal in our laboratory has a speed of 30km/s with regard to the Sun. But the Bragg’s relation does not depend on the speed of the crystal, in order that through his relation we get the value λ=1,65Å.

Now let us submit the protons to the experiment, when they are emitted in two directions. Let us analyze the two different directions of the proton’s motion in the experiment.

Michelson-Morley experiment for protons:

1- First let us consider that the flux of protons is emitted with 32km/s in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s - 30km/s = 2km/s. So, by de Broglie’s relation we get a wavelength λ=1,65Å , and by the Bragg’s relation we also have λ=1,65Å. This means that the proton shall be submitted to the diffraction effect into the crystal, and we can detect the proton’s duality by the experiment.

2- Now consider the flux of protons emitted with 32km/s in the same direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s + 30km/s = 62km/s. Then, the proton has a de Broglie’s wavelength λ=1,65Å/31 = 0,055Å, while from the Bragg’s relation for the crystal λ=1,65Å. Therefore such proton cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal.

This is the result that we have to expect from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics. But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion. Clearly this experimental result does not fit to the concepts of Quantum Mechanics, as has been shown above. One can say that there is no paradox, because it is necessary to consider the velocity of the crystal with regard to the proton, i.e., actually it would be necessary to consider the relation λ= h/m(V-v), where V is the velocity of the proton, and v is the velocity of the crystal. With such argument, actually we are introducing the Doppler effect between the proton and the crystal. However such argument is valid only for pure waves, it is not valid for the de Broglie’s idea of duality. Let us show why.

Consider a proton with speed 30km/s. Its wavelength h/mv is λ= 0,11Å. And if we use a crystal with distance d= 0,06Å , from the Bragg’s relation we get λ= 0,11Å, and therefore in the laboratory we must detect the proton’s diffraction. This is the prediction according to de Broglie’s interpretation. But now consider that we make such experiment with the proton going in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Therefore, with regard to the Sun, the velocity of the proton is Vp= 0. In such experiment, the proton is at rest, while the crystal has a velocity Vc=30km/s toward the direction of the proton. Unmistakably the proton is stopped with regard to the Sun, and this means that it does not have wave feature. The proton with Vp= 0 is 100% corpuscular, and therefore it cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal. So, the de Broglie’s interpretation is wrong.

Obviously we have a paradox. The duality, according to the interpretation of de Broglie, is not compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment for protons. Let us call it Michelson-deBroglie Paradox. It shows that it is not correct the de Broglie's interpretation for the relation λ=h/p.

Instead of being a property of the matter, it's possible the duality wave-particle may be a property of the helical trajectory of elementary particles as the electrons. The helical trajectory is known as zitterbewegung, which appears in the Dirac's equation of the electron

From such new interpretation, the duality wave-particle is not a manifestation of the matter. Actually it's a property of the helical trajectory.

Signatures: 200.149.61.68 (talk) & 200.97.93.67 03:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some sources about this, including some that resolve it, see here. It might be sensible to add something to the article, as long as it's well rooted in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, the books quoted by you speak about OTHER DE BROGLIE'S PARADOX, as we see in [23],

where it's written: "How can De' Broglie discover his famous relation between the particle's momentum and a wave length, a paradox stemming from the time dilatation effect of SR".

• Therefore the paradox quoted by you has not any relation to the de Broglie's paradox concerning the new version of Michelson's experiment, named Michelson-Morley experiment for protons.
• Actually there is not any solution proposed for this new de Broglie's paradox in any book, except in Quantum Ring Theory: [24]

Ccfr: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For more discussion on this topic: User talk:DonJStevens & his UP too. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) by D.A. Borgdorff +>

Article on Vallée

Mr Borgdorff, there is now an article nl:René-Louis Vallée. If you are interested in contributing, feel free to put it on my talk page (disregard the message there), and I will put it in if it does not violate the principles of Wikipedia. Regards, Wammes Waggel (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately noticed that stub written by incompetent and unqualified editors who don't know enough of De Broglie's paradoxes and Vallée's work related apparently. So I'm not amused, certainly not while this started being blocked for too long. I'll take this interwiki attacks on my integrity (also by you) very seriously and resentfully, and complained about "it" already. Further, into the page user talk: Woodwalker, I have debated this matter too, and mentioned to stay aloof of its present content. First put those references back, and the banishments and blocks allover the world you created on metawiki instantly down and out. You have to understand who frequently asked some physicist for helping her out and was the originator of my disappeared article "Material Waves" on the 20th of May. Yours \ D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the edit from user dr. Paul B.

Unfortunately you are going on to disrupt the importance of the Hon. prof.ing. R.-L. Vallée, as well as my contributions of messenger interrelated to most works of De Broglie. This is still indignified upheaval ... of which I stay aloof from. Truly Yrs: \ dAb / +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of a suddenly blocking up from action by Robotje - while defending me - I'll have to (re)place the (un)finished text hereunder in España.wiki:

On the contrary: ¡ Don't take that very important reference away without discussion first.! You are nó more worth than any other user ...nl:G:dAb via —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:08 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → Post scriptum: the lie that in France is no article about Vallée is proved by fr:Synergie in paragraph Physique synergétique. Always, atentamente D.A. Borgdorff: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:35 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → PS: I also clearly stated that the work eruditely published from De Broglie's 'own' Masson & Cie on this topic of M° René-Louis Vallée - mi traslado incluido - had been "classified" by the Public French National State Atomic CEA ultimo 1974 for obvious reasons. Saludos Cordiales y Atte: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 11:14 5 jul 2008 (UTC)

Hoping someone been able to copy/paste insert this into the proper Spanish "equivalent" talkpage overthere ... Thanks in advance for your service. Obliged sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff still from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking issues' For blocking issues, see above-mentioned Semi-Static Archive

Star

		The Original Barnstar
		For trying to get quality reliable high-standard articles into several Wikipedia projects. DTBone (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because elsewhere blocked up, so only able to reply here, I am much surprised to receiving these awards on more than one wiki. Very pleased for your kind and friendly words, that put new heart into research and writing onwards.
I will keep imperishable memories that way and wish you greatly blessed days in return the coming weeks.
Obliged with stumbling, I am faithfully yours D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tram

Hello dAb, almost a week ago, around the time when Beetstra unblocked you, that admin wrote on my talk page:

"I would like to hear your side of this, and I may invite User:Eric Baas [sic] to this discussion as well. In all cases, I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits." [25]

The edits he was writing about were edits where you inserted self references in the articles List of town tramway systems and Tram while Eric Baas and me were removing those references. In the quote above Beetstra was inviting three users: Erik Baas, you and me to discuss those edits. As a result of that invitation I asked some questions on Talk:Tram. I hope you are able to answer those questions so we can work towards a consensus. Since Erik Baas was also specifically invited by Beetstra, I will also ask him to get involved in the discussion on that talk page. After that, we can continue on the talk page of the other article. - Robotje (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As you could see: I started discussion there energeticly. Regards as usual: D.A. Borgdorff = dAb +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I did notice. But so far, you didn't answer any of my questions I wrote there although you did a lot of editing on that page after I placed my questions there. So please don't forget answer them. - Robotje (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion seems not obvious anymore, because here mr. Fram and in Holland and elsewhere mrs. Moira systematicly are being to destroy all of my references, probably owing to revenge. Thanks for your attention though: D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the discussion on Talk:Tram is over then we can start the discussion about the other article as requested by Beetstra. To start it, I already put some questions on Talk:List of town tramway systems I would like you to answer. Let's hope it will help to reach some consensus. - Robotje (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DAB, again, I ask you not to assume anything of which ever other user on this, or on other Wikipedias (or at least not to write it on-wiki). Fram did state that there were places where the reference may be in its place. May you ask you to, in a way that for us is simple, understandable, and comprehensive way, to answer questions and to stay on the subject of the questions.

On another side, I'd like to make a suggestion which may give an opportunity to circumvent all these discussions. You probably have a copy of your own book, with all the references in there. The book itself is quite inaccessable, and hard to check. However, another way to improve this encyclopedia would be to use the information in your book, and expand articles, not citing your own book (including those which you have translated, refactored, or are involved with in any way), but the references that you have used to write the information in these books (that is, preferably the real source of the information). I assume that that would result in less offense regarding the (appropriately or inappropriately disputed and disputable) subjects of verifyability, reliability, self published sources, conflict of interest (whichever may or may not be applicable, and including other policies and guidelines that may be applicable on the wiki you are editing). However, I ask you, that if someone objects to an addition you made, that you will not revert any reversions of your edits, but try (in the same way as I asked above) to discuss it with them on talkpages. I do hope that you understand what consequences edit warring (even if you are right), and self-promotion etc. can have for editors on this (and other) wiki(s).

I have been assuming a lot of good faith on your side, and I must say that I find it difficult to communicate with you in some cases, but I hope that you will do your best to not fail that assumption of good faith (towards me, and towards other editors here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reactions on your talk page please. D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) → My late teacher and friend: [26].

→ http://www.google.com/books?uid=14081564107042339222&hl=nl&rview=1

P.S. Could you please archive some old threads on this talkpage, the page becomes big. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your page has been deleted as an invalid user subpage since you're not registered. I suggest you to create an account and to request its restoration into your user space (e.g. User:Example/Sketches of Spain). Regards, Christian.И 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Ccfr: dAb 86.83.155.44

In the mean time, I've been able to partly Archiving. D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI section

If you reopen an ANI section and add comments about editors, then please have the courtesy to notify these editors of it, as requested in the ANI guidelines. Talking about someone behind their back is not considered civil. Fram (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for reopening were only edits into the Archive 464 - from mr. Erik Warmelink, whom I notified appropriately in due time. Thank you and regards D.A. Borgdorff PE = by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As has happened quite a few times, I understand nothing of your reply. You have discussed the edits of othere editors e.g. here n without notifying them of the discussion. Fram (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As has happened here too, neither do I understand your reply, because I but was illustrating the point that only mr. Warmelink made. D.A. Borgdorff \ dab 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't clear (to me) why you reopened the ANI thread. I now understand that Warmelink edited the archive. I have posted on his talk page [27] cautioning him not do this, and have reverted his edits in the noticeboard archive. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Semi-Retired

Unfortunately, I was being unabled to further editing here because of a correction to the accurate name of RIEN: the Royal Institute of Engineers in the Netherlands but mainly owing to enduring cardiac arrest suffering from the absurd blocking up.

Ingenieur D.A. Borgdorff: Electrodynamical Engineer Power Electronics Emeritus: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Esp. [28] vs. [29] & [30]

Indef block notice

For some reason you felt the need to readd one person's comments to the archive of the talk another user, despite that user clearly asking to "please refrain from editing archived conversations and do not transfer problems on wiki-nl here" in her edit summary. [31] Despite what has been said during the previous unblock discussion, you don't seem to be interested in contributing to the encyclopedia (one good edit in a month [32], all the rest to your own userpage), and for some reason makes edits on the archive of a user talk page of a user you are in a dispute with, despite that user's request not to do so (and the general rule that archives should not be edited normally). You have had enough chances, you have not taken any one of them, so it's time we stop wasting time on you. Fram (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

• Again ...?? You are not a good advertisement for functioning on our Wikipedia here to become abovestated heart-failure again ... in contrast to mr. Beetstra, who didn't drag my name through the mire as a number. I didn't so understand your actions very well too, but am still polite with regards: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. or \ dAb / 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think I dragged your name through the mire anywhere. A user archives his talk page, someone adds comments to it, and the user reverts back to his original archive while asking to refrain from editing the archive. A few weeks later, your first post in two weeks on the English Wikipedia is to revert back to the other version. You have been blocked for disruptive editing numerous times, and have made only one constructive edit since your last unblock, while spending the rest of your time on e.g. a page with Spanish and Dutch conversations you for some reason copied here (User talk:86.83.155.44/Scetches of Spain). On the English Wikipedia, you can not be considered a net benefit and show no inclination of changing this. In light of the number of blocks you have already had and the chances to start again that you have not taken, I have indef blocked you. If you have any questions, please make them more explicit. I am willing to explain things that aren't clear to you, but will not get dragged into an endless pointless discussion again. Fram (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fram: you did so you do as you please. Yours IP-number: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) having to inwardly assimilate all these reproaches. Your link regarding mrs. Moira, who has written lies about me that mr. Warmelink exposed, deleted this clearing where I reacted upon with replacement of that text:

Why are you annoyed? On nl.wiki people don't even get warnings, they are just blocked for studying at the same faculty as someone whom you (plural including the other Dutch steward whose name I may not mention, because he teaches at a competing college of music, nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Schendingen van de privacy van een wikipediagebruiker) do not like. For example someone who (re)added an article about a Dutch pianoplayer who performed in Shanghai, but not in Rotterdam (Tjako van Schie) was blocked for translating an article from Low German. Anyone who had edited from faculty computers at the same university, was (and is) blocked. In Dutch (but Dirk can read that, I believe) nl:Gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/RuG - VKing.

• Dirk explained his warning, you (plural, including that other steward) continue to refuse to explain your blocks. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I and several other admins on wiki-nl have tried, coached and helped this ano to no avail. He is currently blocked for 3 months with us now. Since I was one of the people that probably was at wiki-nl some time ago in the same stage where you are now on wiki-en I do understand your position. Also I blocked and unblocked him <sigh>. Also I helped him archive, helped him ... (etc.) ... Your warning was very clear and you now have succeeded in stopping me from editing on wiki-en. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie (defined as "untruth, uttered while knowing it is untrue", you have repeatedly been told it is false). D.A. Borgdorff is not anonymous. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This above quotation is all about to blame and shame my name and stamping me as 'ano' only. Like you deleted the references, you also let disappearing this text again, which was there in the process of harassing and hunting towards me. Meanwhile I am D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While I feel that you are overreacting to someone labeling an IP editor as an "ano", this is in the end not relevant. You have edited a users' talk page archive to reinsert someone else's posts (more than a month after the first time they were posted) despite the clear objections of the user whose talk page archive you were editing. This is a user where you are clearly in dispute with, and going against his or her wishes on his user talk page archive is disruptive editing (reopening an old dispute without clear reason and in a completely inappropriate place and manner). Combined with your history here, and the lack of good edits, I still don't see why we should let you continue editing here. Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I really will offer you my apologies, but was/am feeling continuously unjustified attacked for a long time, and so certainly overreacting: who should not be like "this" after such a distortion leading to frequent blocking getting very tired, and even worse as mr. Warmelink has experienced too ? Apparently, most people never experienced that horrifying other side being disabled. Yet, still with kind regards D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Continuously unjustified attacked"? The post by MoiraMoira was almost two months old, and the last revert was over a month old. There has been no interaction between you and Moira on the English Wikipedia since mid August (that I know of at least). There is not much "continuously" in all this, the dispute on the English Wikipedia was clearly over. Overreactions can happen, but there has to be something to react to. Your action here came out of the blue, both with regards to your interaction with Moira and with regards to your activity on the English Wikipedia (being your first edit in two weeks time, and your only edit of that day as well). Fram (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm just sorry again, but have referenced to the Semi-Retired header, and this repercusions have led to international 'smearing' as absurd continued blocking at still some ten projects, based on those weird accusations - but transparent to said mr. Beetstra. - For more than a year ago I was able to quietly editing, without all that disgraceful disturbing disputes that later went still going on ... Hoping this explains more, I 'll remain awaiting: D.A. Borgdorff - 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (after socalled: "ec")
  • No, it doesn't really explain anything. Was the archive talk page you edited used as a reference, a link anywhere on another project? Fram (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well Fram, I can imagine – as probably you – that nobody wants to dig in this dusty yard anymore, (re)considering Dutch circumstances, can't we ?? So, rehabilitation will anyhow do better. In the meantime with respect: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• You defend your actions as having to do with countering some international smear campaign, but don't want to provide any evidence that the talk page archive is even part of it and that changing it will help in any way. You are editing an old archive on a Wikipedia where you are barely active, from a user who is no longer active here. When asked why you did this, you fail to give a convincing answer. Why should I waste anymore time on this? Unless you provide any new elements, I'm done here. Fram (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fram, please explain to me why you allow MoiraMoira to edit a dialogue in such a way (removing the opposition) that it will be interpreted 180 degrees differently. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was the talk page of Moira before the final archiving. In the history of that talk page[33], there are no posts by Warmelink. This is the talk page archive of Moira at the time of archiving. Pretty similar to the final version of the talk page. The current version of that talk page is identical to the archived one, as it should be. Moira has not "removed the opposition" from the dialogue, Warmelink and later Dorgdorff felt the need to edit a talk page archive weeks after it was closed and the editor laft the English Wikipedia. This is needlessly prolonging a dispute (certainly in Borgdorffs edit), doing so in the wrong venue (a talk page archive), and against the explicit wishes of the user of that talk page archive (in Borgdorff's case). So I don't allow Moira anything. Please get your facts straight. Fram (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

86.83.155.44, may I ask you what I explicitly asked you NOT to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Beetstra, at first notice: not to put references back or reverting without going into discussion before, which (a.f.a.i.k.) I didn't, as in relation to WP:COI etc.

I don't explicatedly comprehend your (double ?) questioning, as I never was blocked that way, and already were under inquisition from mr. Robotje, cum suis, which is not my vision or opinion of a nice discussion. As said: I have to take health care .... hopefully later being able to more clearly understand the quintessence of your remarks. Sincerely Yours: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, that I, repeatedly, asked you to NOT edit other peoples comments, and when you are asked not to perform an edit again, that you should then follow that. I did warn Moiramoira strongly when they did that on your talkpage, but you do, and keep doing, exactly the same. Can you explain me what you do not understand in those remarks? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MoiraM edited my own text, I never did ever such editing, and only replaced Warmelink's text, which was deleted there, because my name was involved. That's imho completely different ... someone has to be aware of this. I also wasn't pushing or threatening, but have to constantly defend myself and got even blocked while I'm being provoked. Reversal in effect, so it seems. Obligated: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You were not blocked "while you were being provoked", the post was two months old and in an archive, no one was discussing anything with you or in any other way provoking you on the English Wikipedia. No one bothered you here the last month, but you couldn't leave it alone as well. To make sure that doesn't happen again, you are blocked. Fram (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Among others I have been provoked in the nl:wikipedia where e.g. my pages were vandalized - and here now blocked too - only: by coincidence ??... ónly by mainly Dutch speaking persons, who for months pursued and chased me. Not ... no: nót by native C/AE speaking nice reacting colleagues in that same year. As said: (therefore) I was effectively prevented from further writing and editing by that introduced absurd enduring dispute-debates about references of (advanced) De Broglie functions and later about Tram-circuitery et cetera. Meanwhile all valuable refs are erased and (in my feeling) I am even blocked as bonus for my exertions that now still are marked as twopenny insignificant in apotheosis of this present reward for my Wikibreak being to cure 'another' recent heartattack from this confusioning and injuring treatments. Thank you: D.A. Borgdorff - PE (dAb) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

... And a happy New Year ... full Days of Light with Compliments of the Season. → D.A. Borgdorff: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 24 XII 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You are welcome! By the way, there's a translation available - Laozi (Wikisource translation), whose first 13 charpters are mostly translated by myself. and, I am only a teenager. Best regards :-) 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this reply, and for attention to your transcription too.! I 'll soon start reading it through. By the way, in the Dutch article about Lao Tse i.e. nl:Laozi – on the talkpage there – I justified in account the Name(s) {+ death- & birthdate} of this innerlight Grand-Master. Hoping to be correct here with your confirmation, I 'm meanwhile staying in advance with compliments again. D.A. Borgdorff - MASc PE \ 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)