User talk:FyzixFighter/Archive 4

Isotopes of Krypton

You show your main interest to be in physics and so I'd like to see your physical concept of the 36Kr Krypton atomic nucleus. In the mean time could you please move my "ramblings" about the Krypton isotopes from the Article to the Talk section because I don't know how to do it and I agree that that's where it belongs.Thank you.WFPM (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it is irrelevant what I think the physical nature of the 36Kr atomic nucleus looks like - it only matters what reliable sources report about the atomic nucleus. While there is continuing research and disagreement on the best models, all the models in reliable sources accept a few basic premises like "ordinary" particle physical rules for volume and non-intuitive quantum mechanical rules for a wave-like nature.

As for talk pages, your recent multiple posts to other talk pages shows that you do know how to post to talk pages. However, I will not repost to the talk page because I don't see how the post (or most of your other posts to other talk pages) meet talk page guidelines. Specifically:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

Talk pages are not meant to be general discussion pages about the subject of the article. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a forum nor a message board, not a soapbox for self promotion, and not a place for publishing original inventions. I don't think it is appropriate for you to keep cross-posting links back to a talk page where you proposed your own original model of the atomic nucleus as if to try to establish the notability of that model. The post looks more like a message board post than an attempt to discuss changes and improvements to the existing article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your honest answer. And what I am trying to do is to point out supplementary information to femto's exhibited data that show there are elements (mainly even Z elements) with an extraordinary content of neutrons, and then a subsequent reduction in a few following elements for some reason. I think that would be pertinent to people interested in elemental properties, and bring up the question of why an element is stable or unstable in the first place, and how it remains stable as additional neutrons are added. I note that most of the atom images in wikipedia do not deal with the stability problem or with any particular structural concept of the atomic nucleus. And your compartmentalization of information does not do much to provide data interrelationships between adjacent elements. And so I would like to show some of the significant relationships where I can see them. And people who look at my model image are free to believe or disbelieve it as they see fit; but if they have a better set of constructural models I'd very much like to see it.WFPM (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to explain the positive rationale for my images that you've proposed for deletion in the proposed for deletion article, and as usual, I've probably fouled things up. Maybe you might help me do it correctly. And as a fellow Electrical Engineering graduate interested in physics, I'm surprised that you aren't interested in all the details that can be learned about the atoms and particularly about the electron, since we clearly don't know what it is yet.WFPM (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you did it correctly - I did clean up the formatting just a touch to how I've normally seen responses. My graduate degree is in electrical engineering but my undergraduate is in physics so I have a foot in both worlds. I've also done a lot of applied physics in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Honestly I'd rather leave the question of what the the atom and electron really are up to the philosophers. On the other hand I think scientists have a good idea of the nature of the atom and the electron, or rather how they behave and the rules that govern their behavior. Quantum mechanics, with its electron cloud orbitals and its entities that are both particles and waves, actually does a good job of explaining and predicting experimental results. I think I've mentioned this before, but one of the biggest issues I see with the assertion that your physical nuclear model is the true nature of the atomic nucleus is the helium atom. Electron scattering off of your helium nucleus will look different from electron scattering off of the helium nucleus predicted by quantum mechanics - the experimental results match with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Again, Wikipedia is not a forum nor a message board nor a a place for publishing original theories (like your physical nuclear model or you nucleon accumulation theory). You post a lot of factoids about atomic numbers and isotope stabilities to article talk pages, but these all appear like message board postings if you don't also make suggestions about how the article text should be changed in view of those factoids. Even better would be pointing to published articles that say why those factoids are interesting or important or anomalous. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well my charts have found irregularities in the reported halflife data and they are interfering with the correct interpretation of the tendency details of the data and they need to be found and challenged and the log halflife charts help in doing that, and I'm a believer in real physical entities, and not in "electron cloud orbits" which should be called "equal free energy loss orbits", except that they are logically impossible, partly because they don't maintain a constant angular momentum and also because a part of the path is a straight line through the center of attraction, (at the lost free energy velocity level). So we don't know and are still trying to find out, same as Maxwell in the 9th edition of EB. And with the philosophers it's an abstraction, like "What is life?" but to me it's a restricting physics and engineering problem. And the Janet Periodic table and I think my models indicate certain modes of accumulation processes to be much more probable than others and at least need to be considered as an alternative when considering these matters. It makes me doubt the correctness of the concept of the so called "triple alpha process" as being the main source of the existence of the element EE6C12, with all due respect to the efforts of George Gamow et al. And you seem to think that I always need to know the answer to all these matters before I even ask a question about them, which, of course, I don't. But I know enough to provide a reason to ask the question, which I think ought to be a consideration in these important matters. So thank you for your attention.WFPM (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also in passing I would like to note to you that if I take a Croquet ball and drill and tap into it with 6 right handed screws and then spin the device around an axis created by 2 of the opposing screws, I think that you will say that the top and bottom screws are rotating in opposite directions. then, if I take these screws out and hand them to you, do you think that you can tell them apart? Cheers.WFPM (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In the above you say that the electron scattering results related to the (quantum mechanics concept)helium nucleus would be different from those from that indicated by my structural models and I'd like to read about that, since I didn't involve electrostatic properties in my structural considerations, only magnetic compatibility considerations. And so I would like to see what the structural properties of a quantum mechanics concept helium nucleus would look like. And I cant seem to find that in information in the Wikipedia article discussions. Could you please provide a reference as to where I could read about thar information? Thank you!WFPM (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But wikipedia is not a publisher of original research nor is it a message board. It is not the appropriate place to say you have found important irregularities (ie, WP:OR) or to challenge mainstream physics. It's not that I think you need to know the answer before asking a question, but it is that the talk pages are not appropriate place to even be asking the question. Your questions and comments would be better suited to WP:RD or some other message board, but not article talk pages in my opinion.

Beyond that, based on your comments on the talk pages and our discussions here, it appears that you have huge gaps of knowledge about modern physics, like quantum mechanics, and even about classical physics, like basic radiation theory in classical electrodynamics. Because of that I find your conclusions, like those immediately above, about "electron cloud orbits" being logically impossible to be irrelevant since they are based on faulty understanding of modern and classical physics. The orbital images that I think your talking about are not orbits. They do not represent paths or trajectories. They instead represent the most likely regions that an electron in that orbital can be found. Electrons in the orbitals do maintain constant angular momentum, but only because the orbital images again are not paths, but are more representative of the resonant modes of the electron wave orbiting the atomic nucleus. In a way, it's kind of like a drum head. The drum head has various modes of vibration, depending on the energy of the mode. At low energies, there is usually only one mode per energy level, but at higher energies, an energy level could have several possible modes. If we plot out the regions of the drum head that have amplitudes within 90% of the max amplitude, we would get something that looks like the electron cloud orbital images. Go ahead and ask a question on the talk page if you think information in the article is wrong or misrepresents reliable sources, but don't expect other users on the talk page to teach you correct physics or discuss your novel/original theory on the subject - that's not what talk pages are for. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

About the croquet ball, I have one word - Huh? What does a croquet ball and screws have anything to do with quantum mechanics? I'm sure the relevance is obvious to you, but to me it appears like non-sequitur rambling. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I'll try to find studies that address the charge distribution in the atomic nucleus. However, I'm fairly certain that your question was answered three years ago, and the description of File:Helium atom QM.svg also addresses your question. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the best place to answer your question is likely WP:RD or actual message boards like [1]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow!! Well I appreciate your answer to me talk messages and will try to comment as best I can in the following:

First I was assuming that your publishing of the Isotope information data was for reader informational purposes, And that any improvement in the method of presentation of that material for better understanding purposes was to be desired; particularly when you repeated the individual isotope data in the talk section where I thought the method of presentation could be a subject of discussion. Then, when I discovered that some of the data points were inconsistent with associated other data points, as determined by a simple graphic analysis of the data I thought that might be of interesting to readers of this material; so I put in a sample graphic analysis of the data on the isotopes of 82Pb lead to show the what such a graphic analysis would look like. I also noted in the talk section of other elements, like in 47Ag Silver where the reported halflife of certain isotopes, like OO47Ag 114 is so low that it can hardly be representative of the true halflife of that element. And I have no irons in the fire concerning the stability of 47Ag114 or any other isotope. But I want to know the truth and am looking for the most accurate set of data that I can find, and thought that the editors of wikipedia would be concerned about the occurrence of inaccuracies, or at least incorrect result description of the presented data. And you find that inappropriate for Wikipedia discussion, and that it would be inappropriate to even discuss or ask a question about how accurate the reported data is. Well, I'm not in a position to provide an up to date solution to this problem, since I operate from 1 data publication to the next. But I think that Wikipedia should take note that their published data contains this deficiency of accuracy, and to the editing quality control procedures needed to control it.WFPM (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So the "orbital" motion of the electron around the atom does not represent the path location, and the electrons still travel in (Mvr) paths having a constant angular momentum. So then it can't go through the center of the atom and must always have a constant v times r path except for relativity adjustments. I have no problems with that, except to note that such conical paths as I'm familiar with would not have their probability of occurrence factor consistent with the spacial volume locations of the orbital figures proposed to explain the different paths or modes of vibration or whatever type of movement you want to call it. Also, if you trisect a cube you wind up with 27 small cubic volumes with No. 14 being in the center. And the spacial subdivision system of the orbital concept leaves out the 8 corner cubic subspaces and instead substitutes a 2 separate volume spacial construct for the orbital volume representations that doesn't make any sense to me.WFPM (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

In the Croquet ball discussion I was going to point out that if I refined the design of the screws and eliminate the screw head so that the screws were mere 2 equal lengths of machine screw material, then if they were located with the spinning croquet ball and the consideration of their connection to the croquet ball was neglected, then the configuration and spin orientation of the opposing screws in the ball would be identical, and not 1 up and 1 down as previously supposed. And if they were disconnected from the ball and left spinning, there would be no difference in identity. So what does that say about spin orientation designations?WFPM (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as blunt, but previous indirect attempts by myself and others doesn't seem to have conveyed the intended information. Let me pull some of your most recent comments and put them in context (imo) of WP policies on original research

• "I was assuming that your publishing of the Isotope information data was for reader informational purposes, And that any improvement in the method of presentation of that material for better understanding purposes was to be desired."

Perfectly fine. Better presentation of material is an issue with which everyone does and should grapple.

• "...when I discovered that some of the data points were inconsistent with associated other data points, as determined by a simple graphic analysis of the data I thought that might be of interesting to readers of this material"
• "I also noted in the talk section of other elements, like in 47Ag Silver where the reported halflife of certain isotopes, like OO47Ag 114 is so low that it can hardly be representative of the true halflife of that element."
• "...thought that the editors of wikipedia would be concerned about the occurrence of inaccuracies, or at least incorrect result description of the presented data."

And with those comments you've passed into OR territory. It is OR because you believe the data points are anomalous, and that's based on what you think the consistent pattern should be. That is by definition primary research, which WP:OR explicitly is meant to prevent. There are a few ways for this type of discussion to be appropriate and not be OR. First, you can point out that different sources give different numbers for the same isotope and discuss how the discrepancies should be handled. A corollary to this would be to discuss the reliability of a source, but that usually has to be based on how that source is viewed within the mainstream field of science as opposed to our opinion of the data. Second, you can provide at least one reliable source that points out that the measured data points are anomalous or inconsistent. Especially in the science-related articles, discussion of how accurate the reported data should generally limited to be within one of those two contexts. Just because we personally find the data to be inconsistent or anomalous is not sufficient for discussion on the article pages (it is sufficient for discussion on message boards). If you do find the data to be inconsistent, I suggest digging through reliable sources for one that agrees with your assessment and then start a discussion using that source.

About the electron stuff - the orbitals don't represent paths but represent the most likely place to find an electron for that state. Paths don't make sense at the atomic level in quantum mechanics because the electron is not behaving like a particle but like a wave, so definitions like Mvr for angular momentum don't apply. Instead quantum mechanics uses a "wave" definition of angular momentum, and the wavefunctions that define the orbitals for the different energy levels have constant angular momentum with this definition. The shapes you see don't have anything to do with packing theory. Instead, just like the shapes of the modes of the vibrating drumhead, they are determined by what functions fit the boundary conditions and the governing differential equation for the system. I don't recall if I've suggested in before, but I highly recommend "Applied Quantum Mechanics" by A.F.J. Levi for an approach to quantum mechanics from an electrical engineering background (Levi is a professor of electrical engineering at USC and previous to that worked for ten years (1983-93) at Bell labs).

And I'm still not seeing the relevance to the croquet ball/screw analogy. What is it analogous to and how does it relate to any of the physics discussion above? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay then it boils down that you want to print the isotope data with the details of agreement among sources as to accuracy etc, but you don't like to have one of your invited editors pointing out at to your readers any inconsistency of any of the data points to the readers in the edit section of your publication. And I guess it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, it's just that your rules says that he can't bring up the subject. And you can't point out the self evident inaccuracy yourself, but you have to get someone else to do it. So much for editorial freedom.

And then you want to take a concept like angular momentum (classical Mvr) and say that the electron particle doesn't obey those rules, because it's no longer a particle, but now a distributed energy wave of some sort which still has some mathematically derived property that you still want to call angular momemtum. But I gather that it still has a point source electrostatic charge for each proton involved and that can be shown to be approaching very close to each other in the case of the alpha particle. And I note in your referred image that the indications of the image is that the separation distance between adjacent proton to neutron conjunctions is allowed to be very close whereas the separation between the protons and between the neutrons in shown to be much greater. Is that intentional? It's what I observed in my magnetized models.WFPM (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your first paragraph above - but what happens if another editor says that there isn't any inconsistency in the data points? If we allow primary research, there is no way to truly resolve such an issue. IMO, the rules are helpful because it puts all editors on a level field, in other words my own personal opinions on the subject of the article are not more important than yours, and vice versa. Instead, what's important and what we only report is what's been published in reliable sources. Let the reliable sources have the burden of figuring out what's wrong and what's right. Remember that a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability (ie, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source), not truth (ie, whether editors hold private opinions that the material is true). Coming back to our discussion, if the inaccuracy is so self-evident, it would seem that it should be easy to find a reliable source that points it out.

A point of clarification, I don't see these as my rules; these are wikipedia's rules. As an honest question, do you feel that I have misrepresented wikipedia policy in any way? Is there something you've read in wikipedia policy that you think gives us such editorial freedom to point out self-evident inaccuracies ourselves? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your editorial problems and approve of your general ability to maintain a sort of order in this maelstrom of information dissemination re matters of human interest that is occurring these days. That's why I went to the effort to show you how to make apparent certain discrepancies in your nuclear stability report material. Then your opinion and my opinion wont be the deciding factors concerning the correctness of this material. But you reject my authority to call this matter into question, because you say I,m not a reliable authority and have no status, whereas you have the authority to eliminate my contributions to your material based on your different opinion as to their suitability and or merit. And you say that I lack knowledge about the mathematical aspects and related concepts re atomic physics phenomena that you want to use to argue that the mathematical concept as to the nature of the atom is such that it doesn't have to obey any of the rules with which I might be familiar. And in the meantime I note the inconsistencies in the articles and images concerning these matters (as well as in the National Geographic and other publications) And wonder if anybody really wants to get at the truth. But I think that a sincere editor should be trying to get at the truth, and in Wikipedia parlance that means in having an open point of view. And I don't know why the so called reliable sources haven't bothered to use this method to verify the rationality of their data and I have called this matter to their attention. Maybe they have some conflicting method I don't know. But I don't think I should have the burden of proving the obvious. but only in calling the matter to your attention. And I do think that an editor should have the editorial freedom to point out an observed self-evident inaccuracy if he/she observes it because you're doing it in your discussion arguments all the time.WFPM (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think you're misunderstanding the policies and aims of wikipedia. Your resolution to a disagreement is also dependent on everyone accepting the material/physical model. From my perspective, I think I'm having the same problem you think you're having. I have a model, based on quantum mechanics, that can resolve the apparent discrepancies but you don't accept that model. However, because I too am not a reliable authority and have no status I am powerless to push this model throughout the community unless I have reliable sources. That's why I'm reluctant to try to teach you modern physics, but instead recommend to you a reliable source. I've been through the tussle of trying to argue physics from first principles with someone with whom I disagree on the physics and let me tell you that those debates never go anywhere. If you have reliable sources to back up your opinions, then my opinion about their suitability and/or merit is meaningless on its own and I couldn't rightly remove the material. I would have to find other reliable sources if I wanted to challenge its inclusion. Even if I feel an inaccuracy is self-evident, there are only two options if someone challenges them - 1) provide reliable sources that point out the inaccuracy, 2) go to the larger community and see if the inaccuracy is actually self-evident. That's how I would say things work on wikipedia. But you never answered my questions, and I'd really like to know your thoughts and feelings. Do you feel that I have misrepresented wikipedia policy in any way? Is there something you've read in wikipedia policy that you think gives us such editorial freedom to point out self-evident inaccuracies ourselves? --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You sound like a professor. Where the mode of communication becomes more important than the subject matter. You can't communicate with me so you think that somebody else could communicate better. But what about the subject matter. I've always said that in a discussion there are 3 sets of informative material being dealt with, namely: 1, my idea 2, your idea and 3 the true nature of the subject matter. And we can't get anywhere trying to impose ideas, unless they are directly related to the nature of the subject matter. And I sympathize with your inability to communicate a concept which you think is valid and relevant, but you want to do it by disregarding my concepts and by not wanting to deal with data or other matters pertaining to the subject matter that might improve our understanding of its nature. Why? Because your desire for the understandability (to you) of the ideas being presented is greater than your desire to determine about the specifics of the subject under discussion, which according to you has already been decided by "a reliable source". Me, I know that I don't know about a lot of things, which is supposed to be an improvement over not knowing that I don't know. So in Quality Control, I look for irregularities, which is a good procedure. And when I find one I expect that a person who knows about the subject matter should be able to explain it. But you want to disclaim responsibility for irregularities in your published information (by saying that the larger community doesn't think it to be self-evident?) With that attitude I'd say that you would never qualify as a quality control specialist. Sorry to digress. Take the concept of angular momentum. Its evidently some part of the free kinetic energy of a moving system if some part of it is restricted by being restricted to remaining in a fixed location and the sum of the Mv^2 values is changed to the sum of the Mvr values. I wouldn't know how it is expressed in Quantum physics but I can visualize it in a spacial geometric concept. And you want me to abandon that concept? For what other geometric concept? Oh Well. If you will just examine and compare the halflife values of 47Pb lead for the atomic numbers OOAg108, OOAg110, OOAg112, OOAg114, OOAG116, and OOAg118 and let me know what you think about the consistency of the reported value of OOAg114 with the rest of the data, I'd be pleased to hear what you think of its correctness. And a chart of this data is much easier to look at.WFPM (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for your response to these questions: Do you feel that I have misrepresented wikipedia policy in any way? Is there something you've read in wikipedia policy that you think gives us such editorial freedom to point out self-evident inaccuracies ourselves? --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you sound like a lawyer. And I'm no authority on Wikipedia policy and bow to your superior knowledge of same. But I don't think that you, with your attitude, would have ever allowed me to get in my Model image in the first place, because it violates some of your concepts. And I thank V. Smith for giving me some needed help and a break. And now you want to kick it out, because you think I "ramble on" by trying to discuss some of the informative aspects of such a concept. And I really don't see what you have against the graphical format presentation of the data for understanding purposes.WFPM (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have, but I've intentionally tried to limit my arguments as to why the model image and associated images should be removed away from my personal assessment of the concepts. Like I've said, my arguments would be completely meaningless if you had reliable sources to back up your concepts. I ask the questions because I feel that you think wikipedia is something that it isn't. To paraphrase WP:FRINGE, none of us should use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting our personal pet theories. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. It is this kind of behavior - frequently cross-posting to talk pages with the images or links to those files - that I find inappropriate. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a theory or concept must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Honestly, perhaps someone would find the half-life graph interesting, but the attempt at original analysis in the image text and the physical model diagram violate WP:OR in my opinion. Since you seem to think User:Vsmith has been more sympathetic to you, I'd suggest asking him to take a look at both this discussion and the File for Deletion proposal and see what he says. Finally, since you disagree with my actions can you please look at WP:OR, WP:NFT, and WP:NOTFORUM and tell me if and how I've misapplied these policies to your files/images? I'm not asking this to be lawyer-ish, rather I want you to understand the policies and purposes of Wikipedia so that you can contribute more constructively to the project. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No I think you're trying to keep me from contributing creatively to the project by minimizing my ability to contribute any ideas that you disagree with. And I don't claim to be a reliable source. Just an inquiring reader in some subjects that I'm interested in. And I think I have creatively contributed because I have managed to get you to disparage my contributions rather than just ignore them. And I didn't do any soapbox self promotion or advertising, but only identified myself as you're supposed to do. And I'm trying to pin you down about the alpha particle as to what it looks like and whether you agree with Wiki's image that you're promoting to me and you're avoiding the issue because you don't want to be pinned down to anything except your mathematical formulae and maybe some associated concepts that are hard for you to communicate to other than a mathematically inclined person. And mathematics is a great analyzing tool, but it isn't the real thing and you evidently think that if you stoop to make a decision between the validity of the individual numbers of a set of values you are doing "original research". I think you're stretching the concept of original research beyond its reasonable limits for some reason in order to avoid providing the reader with a better format for understanding of the contained information.WFPM (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I really don't take to kindly to outright accusations that I'm acting in bad faith, my patience is getting very thin, and I don't if I can remain civil much longer, so I think we're pretty much at an impasse and given your disregard for WP:AGF in the above comment, I'm probably not going to respond to any further comments by you on this subject in this section. I've honestly tried to act in good faith and I've tried to limit my comments about your motivation and you personally, and instead only comment on your behavior. Other people have already tried to explain to you what the shape of the alpha particle is, and to explain how quantum mechanics works, so I don't see what the point of me further trying and expecting a different result. I know I'm not the best communicator - that's why I suggested the Levi textbook. If you're not willing to do the leg work by checking out the references that I and others have suggested, then I have little motivation to make any further attempts to clear up your concerns. If you feel that I have behaved inappropriately either by acting in bad faith or by stretching the concept of WP:OR, take it up on WP:WQA or WP:NOR. In fact I think I would actually enjoy letting others take a look at this little interchange, so please consider those venues if you want to pursue further discussion on this. Maybe then someone with more patience and more pedagogical skill than I might get you to understand the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So in Quantum mechanics I'm a lost cause, because I don't know how it works and you would enjoy having others look at this exchange. Fine! So you want to banish me and my materials because I wont learn what you think is the right set of ideas about the atom and particularly the alpha particle. Well I'm not important so it depends upon the value of my materials and maybe whether or not I have a right to make a proposed clarifying improvement in your format of presentation. Since I'm unqualified to judge the value of my material to others, I would appreciate your referring this matter to V Smith and maybe Wheaton or Dirac66 with whom I've had discussions as to some of this subject matter. Since your knowledge of the protocols is much better than mine I'm sure you can and will do a good job in finding this out. I'm certainly not going to waste my time in some kind of vendetta against you for doing what you think is your duty in this matter.WFPM (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is not accepted as Christianity in Hong Kong

It is controversial to put Mormonism as Christianity in Hong Kong. Please follow the Wiki category policy: "Be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." STSC (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you before, this runs counter to a consensus decision, succinctly summed up here, that was reached after multiple long discussions. For example, Mormonism is listed under Christianity#Major groupings within Christianity, List of Christian denominations, List of Christian denominations by number of members, {{Christianity}}, Category:Christian denominational families, as a subset of Christianity in the demographics of states and nations,...and the list goes on. The classification of Mormonism is not that controversial in academic/scholarly/secular sources, really it is only controversial in theological/sectarian sources. As WP is a secular encyclopedia, it is perfectly reasonable to categorize Mormonism as Christianity. Again this is done across multiple pages on WP (of note, for example, WP:CHRISTIAN - especially seeing as you've joined their Christianity in China work group) and is based on consensus and reliable sources. I don't see why pages relating to Hong Kong or Asia should be exempt from this pattern. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Hi FyzixFighter. On 22 November you erased a section from Centrifugal force - your diff. This has become the subject of a new thread on the Discussion page. I agree with the theme of the new thread so I have restored the section you deleted. Please join the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force#Inadvisable deletion leaves no clues to related topics. Dolphin (t) 20:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hay,

I don't like the idea of being the only person who comment on John Foxe actions (I was not part of the edit war this time). So I thought you might like to comment [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Three_Witnesses|here]] on a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ironically brought up by Foxe.

You may not want to get involved, and I would understand. I was back and back and forth myself, since I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest. However, in the end I felt that User:BOMC needed to have someone point out the extent of Foxe's actions compared to his. It wasn't fair to of Foxe to complain when his actions are so much worse.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Golden plates

The more I think about that caption, the more I prefer your reversion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Biblical Canon Article

You made two edits based upon things that I've wrestled with--mostly with myself--on this page. The first edit, I undid. The second edit, I maybe wouldn't undo completely, but I see no reason to give the Community of Christ it's own section. Honestly the idea to give the Strangites their own section was based upon their very distinct view about their canon, not their membership numbers. This wealth of information about their canonical views caused multiple paragraphs to be written... thus, giving them their own section. Believe me, it would be easier if everyone accepted the same canon, then this would be such an easy, short article.... but they don't. ((( As it is, I have not figured out how to fit in a couple of other related canons/works like the Christian Scientist's additional central text, and others like it... that in a way, belong on this page, only if to be mentioned in passing.))) I think a compromise here would be to have the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be one section, and the other Latter Day Saint sects be the other section. In a well written article---and this is a work in progress---aesthetics actually play a role, and having the CofC section with just a small blurt of information looks silly, in my opinion. I haven't made any changes to your edit, just looking for your opinion on this, as you seem to be more than just a passer-by on this article that I have labored on for hours.98.20.170.121 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with combining the Community of Christ into a general "Other Latter Day Saints". I was thinking the same thing when I saw how small the section was. But from my understanding of WP:UNDUE, wealth of information doesn't necessarily translate into how much prominence something should have, so I thought it somewhat odd that the Strangite sect would get a subheading all to itself. I am happily amenable to the two section solution you described above.

About the first edit, I don't think I understand your aesthetics argument fully but I'm willing to look for ways to make it look better. However, the second half your reason for undoing the edit, that some people debate the placement, goes against the established standard on WP, i.e. for the purposes of WP the LDS are included as a subset of Christianity. This is seen on numerous pages and categorizations, including (especially relevant to this discussion) Religious text. I don't like sacrificing what I see as accuracy for aesthetics, so how can we adjust the look to comply with the organization seen throughout the rest of WP? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The original creators of the page went through a series of arguments about the inclusion of Latter Day Saint extra-Biblical scripture on this page. No resolution was ever really reached. When I first accessed the page, the section was called "Open Canons." I tried integrating it into the Christian canons section with some resistence. ***** I now have changed the name of the preceding section to "Christian Biblical canons" because the section only talks about the development of the Bible... since Latter Day Saints are also Christians, this would also imply the development of their Bible. There is a natural progression on this page from the Jewish Old Testament to the Christian Bible to Other extra-Biblical scripture. When I have the time, I am planning to maybe integrate the Latter Day Saint information into a larger section called "Extra-Biblical Christian Scripture"... I just don't have the time at this point to do all of the research and editing to create such a thing.98.20.170.121 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delayed response. Yeah, I've never understood why Extra-biblical canon stuff is covered so extensively in the "Biblical canon" article. In terms of the LDS stuff, I could maybe see covering the Joseph Smith Translation and parts of the Pearl of Great Price that resulted from it. But, if we are to keep all the information there I would suggest trying a few things. Let me just throw out a few ideas. "Christian closed canons" might be better for the existing heading, so as to avoid repeating the article title in the headings. And then put "Christian open canons" as the next heading. This kind of organization is already hinted at in the lead where the distinction between open and closed canons is touched on briefly. Although I don't know if open canon is necessarily synonymous with extra-biblical scripture (perhaps some of the Christian groups with extra-biblical scriptures now adhere to the idea of a closed canon) Alternatively, looking at the fact that article currently doesn't even touch the Jehovah's Witnesses biblical canon, perhaps "Traditional Christian" and "Non-traditional Christian canons" might be the better way to group them, with the latter covering both non-traditional strictly-biblical but unique canons like the JW and theologies with extra-biblical additions to canon like the LDS, Christian Scientists, and Seventh Day Adventists. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Keep up the work and good job keeping those with POV issues from ruling Wikipedia. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism

Hi. I understand you have recently reversed the edit on core Mormon beliefs. I have cited several supplemental ones comparing core Mormon beliefs as described on my edit. Please also read Ben Wotherington research to confirm that his research is accurate regarding Mormonism. I understand you may have the same religious faith, but Ben is a diligent author and researcher on this topic and I feel that along with the other sources I now added, he is also a true, unbiased and reliable source just as his website is honored by Wikipedia as an impartial belief source and website. QvisDevs (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF

Hi, I am attempting to assume good faith here, but I am seeing a pattern of meatpuppet editing around these mormon articles. you do not WP:OWN these articles nor does the mormon church. A little more balanced content actually helps rather than hurts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.136.172 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon peoples

I think I solved the POV problem by creating Category:Book of Mormon peoples, analogous to Category:Hebrew Bible nations and Category:Rigvedic tribes. Goustien (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion nomination Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

Hey there - getting a little bit more active lately trying to clean up these Mormon articles - and could use your thoughts on a recent nomination for deletion: Perfection (Latter Day Saints). Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello FyzixFighter,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Community of Christ Infobox

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Star control siblinghood

Just wanted to chime in and thank you for your work not just on pages we've edited together, but also on the Star Control Wiki. I still have fond memories of my first contact with the Orz, the joys of a Pkunk resurrection ship, or how eager I was to have Kohr-Ah in PvP.  :) a **happy camper**, --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson lawsuit

Hello. I was glad to see you agreed with me that the lawsuit against President Monson was too frivolous a matter to be mentioned in his WP article. Now that view is under direct attack from the user who posted a request to have it included. Short of discussing the issue, he is resorting to personal attacks that are unbecoming any self-respecting WP editor. I respectfully ask for your support in proving that this is a frivolous lawsuit and not worth mentioning on WP. If this user sees that I'm not the only one with this opinion, he might change his tune. And admittedly, I could use as many people in my corner as I can get. Thanks for your help. Please post on the article's talk page or reply on my talk page, as I don't routinely check other user's talk pages for a response. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

It's a disputed classification. From the Mormonism article: "Mormonism categorizes itself within Christianity, and Mormons self-identify as Christian.[51][52][53] For some who define Christianity within the doctrines of Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestantism, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity.[54][55][56]". So I just switched the words to other. Alatari (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but most academic sources (as seen in ARIS and ARDA) place Mormonism within Christianity. The consensus for what to do on WP was hammered out after lots of debate on a few high level articles, a succint summary of that consensus given here. That's the reason that on WP whenever there are subheadings involving religion groupings that Mormonism is included within Christianity. Note also that Mormonism is included in Christianity#Major groupings within Christianity, List of Christian denominations, List of Christian denominations by number of members, {{Christianity}}, Category:Christian denominational families, and [[WP:CHRISTIAN] to name a few high level examples. Finally, note that my edit did not remove their population numbers completely since the population numbers are also stated in the second-to-last paragraph. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't fight consensus but any religion that adds new books is not the original. The numbers being in the last paragraph away from the rest of the religions didn't make sense so I just deleted those numbers and corrected the non-Christian debate by deleting it. Alatari (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reaction_(physics)

Hey there FyzixFighter,

Good catch on my (vague! :-) ) implication (that -dP/dt is pseudoforce or whatever) wasn't supported directly by the cited ref. I removed the linking of "rate of change of momentum" to "fictitious force" to fix that. In addition, you should know that yes, indeed I was editing that article so it would support the "reactive CF" article. If Reactive_CF is going to link to Reaction_(physics), then Reaction_(physics) better darned well be purged of its own nonsense. I would never have wanted to touch Reaction_(physics) were it not for the fact that you insisted on linking to it. Heck, if you were to concede to removing the link, I'd probably care (somewhat) less about it I suppose.

I was also editing Reaction_(physics) to fix its original torqued-over, screwed up, uncited, royally misstated, layman's version of the 3rd law - because it needed fixing in and of itself. I see you didn't like most of (all of?) my rework of it. I noted you removed a good (though imperfect) and accessible citation (without a stated justification for removal). I saw you wanted to reassert (with another inaccessible ref, but I'll take it) that "force" is the only legitimate way to say it. Okay, you can have "force", but with the alterations to it that I made: 1) A "force-only" phrasing is indeed true if there are no components of the system that are accelerating. 2) That rate of change of momentum must somehow be included in phrasings that admit accelerating components (they don't have to be called pseudoforces in this context). If the article spoke only of static systems, we could keep just the "force-only" explanation as long as it retained the "no accelerations" clause. But, the article does talk about accelerations so the statement allowing for dP/dt must remain in place.

Montyv (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen that distinction made between accelerating versus non-accelerating components. On the contrary, the classical mechanics textbook by Taylor uses examples with non-static, accelerating objects (eg, moon orbiting the earth, electron orbiting a proton) for the his "force" phrasing and invokes the concept of reaction force in situations with accelerating particles. I've honestly never seen the distinction made between force and "action"/rate change in momentum. I've left it in for now, but I removed the source since it looks to me like a self-published website. Self-published sources are inherently bad, but there is a high standard that they have to meet to be used as reliable sources. And it doesn't look like this qualifies (not referenced by other reliable sources, not a well-known and established expert as its creator, no indication of peer-review, no references to other sources as a paper trail for its claims).

I'm surprised that you're finding the google book urls inaccessible. You once said the links were behind a paywall; I didn't think google books even charged for access. Help me understand what's blocking you - what do you see when you click on this link [2]? Does the site load but say you have reached your viewing limit where the pages would be? If not, it could be something your ISP is doing. I would try clearing the cookies in memory in your browser and try those links from a different access place like an internet cafe or library.

One other option to explore would be to seek advice at WT:PHYSICS if we still find ourselves in disagreement. I'd keep the comments to the general topic of action-reaction/3rd law stuff if you do. The community is still very tired and entrenched somewhat with regards to centrifugal force after the actions of a couple now topic-banned editors, who are partly to blame for the sorry state the articles are in now IMO. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref sharing?

By the way, I really am interested in seeing those hard-to-get refs. I set up a temporary Skype account with the username of "s82528923649" and the display name of "Montyv". If you have the particular passages (such as screenshots), I'd like to get a chance to see them (I think it would be clearly "fair use" to just send passages). Skype can be used for file transfers if you didn't know. Just IM me at that address and we can arrange the FTP. Also, if you want to make your own temporary Skype account, it's easy at https://login.skype.com/account/signup-form Montyv (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed your post to Adjwilley. I am male (no need for the "he/she" pronoun). Don't worry, I don't take your efforts as "Wikihounding" (whatever that is) or negative in any way. You love the subject and so do I. Our edits have been spirited, but we haven't gone over the brink (due to obvious and skilled efforts at self control on your part and I can say some effort and skill on my part too). That's all good. We think we understand physical reality differently in a very small corner of the world of physical reality, but there's still a chance it can be resolved. We may not actually disagree, it could still be rooted only in language. Even if not, it could still be resolvable. Like I said, I'm optimistic. Montyv (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FyzixFighter. You have new messages at AsteriskStarSplat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coriolis Force

Fyzixfighter, I'm just letting you know that I'm going to drop out of the Coriolis force discussion. After making my last edit regarding angular momentum, I thought further about the matter. I thought about the gyroscope tilting under forced precession due to Coriolis force acting on the rim. That Coriolis force is observed in the inertial frame and not in the rotating frame. I thought it through and concluded that it is all just conservation of angular momentum, and that Coriolis force and conservation of angular momentum are one and the same thing, and that it all holds only in the inertial frame, and that it only holds in a rotating frame when the object shares the angular velocity of the frame, otherwise we are only looking at artifact deflections and not Coriolis force. I'm not ignoring your last posting. I'm just letting you know that under wikipedia rules I can no longer contribute to that article, because it's all far more complicated than the sources would permit. Yes, you can remove the reference to conservation of angular momentum in the lead, because it is irrelevant in the context of a rotating frame of reference. My mistake. 94.173.45.184 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On further reflection I can see now exactly what the problem is, and it's too deep rooted to solve on wikipedia. The article is confusing the artifacts of a rotating frame with Coriolis force. The only true Coriolis force mentioned in the article prior to my intervention, is the gyroscopic effect of the insects' halteres, and that occurs in an inertial frame. I stupidly thought that I could fix the article by removing the reference to 'observation' in the lead, but I was overlooking the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is the rotating frame of reference, and most of the examples in the article were of artifacts resulting from observation in the rotating frame. Since most official sources seem to confuse the Coriolis force with the artifacts of a rotating frame, the problem is too deep rooted to fix on wikipedia. I was wrong to add 'conservation of angular momentum' to the lead so long as 'rotating frame' is also mentioned there. But 'rotating frame' is the core basis of the mainstream perception of Coriolis force, and so that's why I dropped out of the talk page discussion. It's incurable, and Coriolis force is not involved in either of the two cannon scenarios that I concocted. Only artifact deflections. Likewise with the centrifugal force article, and I think that you'll slowly realize that the rotating frame of reference is the joker in the pack in both cases. So I'm out of both now, and I hope you didn't think I was rude by not replying to you on the Coriolis force talk page. By all means remove all edits that I made to that article. 94.173.45.184 (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Darmokand

Can you comment at user_talk:Darmokand? I see the logic there: this is not a valid cleanstart, however, his original account could have been unblocked under the conditions he operated under. So, the sock block is a good one, but are you comfortable with the contrition in the unblock request? Was there anything problematic with the sock other than the evasion? On the fence. Kuru (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Lost 116 Pages

You are being rort for edit warringMormography (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mormography: - See my comment on your talk page on some of the places you should go to in order to actually report editors/seek administrator assistance, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, FyzixFighter. You have new messages at Talk:Pioneer Day (Utah)#Pie and Beer Day.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for making me a better Wikipedian

Thank you for your oversight. I can understand how someone might mistake me for someone with an agenda to push or a point of view to promote. I assure you, I'm not here to do anything but write good NPOV articles about topics that fascinate me.

Like every editor, I need to guard against using biased sources that might lead to unintentionally-biased articles. Like every editor, I count on my team-mates to help me do my best. You make a great team-mate. Darmokand (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tachyon

Nikola tesla knew light speed was slow before it hit major physics. His Colorado notes prove that Fulely (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FyzixFighter reported by User:Timber72 (Result: ). Thank you. Timber72 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Timber72:: Technically, the #2 and #3 diffs you listed should be counted as a single revert since they were consecutive saved revert edits with no intervening edits by another user (see WP:3RR). I thought I would give you a chance to correct this oversight before I bring up the point at WP:EWN. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter:: And just as technically, the #3 and #4 diffs YOU listed should be counted as a single revert, since they were consecutive saved revert edits with no intervening edits by another user. (see WP:3RR) The threats and reports, especially when you are in violation of Wikipedia policy yourself for failing to use the Talk page to work out these differences before reverting them. The facts are simple: the edit was verifiable, SOURCED, and legitimate according to Wikipedia policy. Making a scene about it because of your personal opinion/philosophy, and then hiding behind policy technicalities, isn't going to work. You may be more experienced than myself with Wikipedia, but your history shows a pattern of edit warring, while mine does not. The changes are legitimate, and, again, if I have to get dispute resolution involved, I'll be glad to do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: The discussion alluded to in this section is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301#User:FyzixFighter reported by User:Timber72 (Result:No merit). (In case anyone's interested.) - dcljr (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mormonism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page God of Israel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

COI accusation

Why are you spending so much time defending the LDS Church Article? It can only mean one thing. You have a seemingly VERY CLOSE relationship to the article and subject? So close that you probably could recite much of it's doctrine. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy, this is not your Bible Study, it's an online source of facts. Please refer to policy and operate under it. Intolerance reflects a negative attitude towards the subject and it's readers, Don't white wash the article, if you don't like something then your welcome to edit it. If you don't agree with something, your not allowed to delete it. lets hope the subject (The Church) and it's editors and all it's members do not share the same personal connection to the article as you have. It's just a Wikipedia Article, it's not a protest against your beliefs. ThanksBeesmill (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Beesmill: Please see WP:AGF. Since I have disclosed that I have a degree in physics, does that mean I have a COI with respect to physics articles (another editor has actually made that accusation against me). Seeing as I have never disclosed my religious affiliation, you should avoid commenting about what you assume to be my motives. The edits of yours that I've reverted, besides being poorly written (usually grammar, spelling, and punctuation), have generally failed multiple wp policies, such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. If I feel that an edit fails any one of those, then under policy I certainly can remove/delete the text. If those are your edits, rather than reinsert them, take them to the talk page and discuss and gain consensus before reinserting (per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS). Again, refrain from commenting on other editors' motives - if you're here to right great wrongs, ie prevent the public from being misled about the LDS Church by the white-washing Mormon Cabal, then maybe WP isn't for you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the SPI on ChaosDestroyer. I'm embarrassed, I should have caught it. Let me know if you ever find another Gonzales John sock. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Timothy, son of Nephi

An article that you have been involved in editing—Timothy, son of Nephi —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Deaddebate (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your actions on some recent articles we've both edited. I appreciate your perspective, consistency, and formatting. I'm getting my feet wet, and experienced users like you are necessary for keeping the quality and tone at a high caliber. Deaddebate (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Exaltation (Mormonism)

Please see my entry at Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism). I would welcome any feedback you may provide. Deaddebate (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Multiple physics error"

For instance? Note that the version you reverted it back to also contains "physics error"s as well as grammatical errors. - dcljr (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Actually, the grammatical errors are in the subsequent sections. But still, the wording of the whole "stone" section is horribly imprecise. And, of course, also unreferenced. - dcljr (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the physic errors: The engine does not provide the forward force - the forward force is actually provided by the ground pushing on the tires, the engine causes the tires to rotate and, via friction, push against the ground. (Similarly, when the car is turning the leftward force is technically not provided by the car's turned tires, but by the ground pushing on the tires). The force backwards of the tires on the ground and the force forward of the ground on the tires form a 3rd Law pair (equal and opposite). Which brings up the next error, all of the combinations listed in the first paragraph are not 3rd law pairs. The forward force pushing the car forward is balanced by the backwards forces on the car, but they are not equal and opposite due to Newton's 3rd Law (as implied by the wlink). Nor is the force of gravity a 3rd law pair with the force of the road pushing up. 3rd law pairs are always the same kind of force (the equal and opposite force of the gravitational pull of the earth on the car is the gravitational pull of the car on the earth) and act on different objects so they can never "balance" in a free body diagram. Just because two forces are equal and opposite does not make them a 3rd Law pair (especially if they are acting on the same object).

I also thought it a bit strange that so much text was focused on the car when the only mention of the centrifugal force is relative to the passenger in the car. I was trying to rewrite the whole text relative to the passenger and the forces acting on him/her. It would simplify a lot of the force explanation and really focus on how centrifugal force is an apparent force due to tying observations to a rotating frame of reference. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, we need to emphasize the apparent existence of the force in the passenger's frame and the reality of the centripetal force in the inertial frame, and the connection between the two. It's so hard to get the wording right... You accidentally said, "the passenger is continuing in a straight line" — which she isn't because of the centripetal force — and then I accidentally said, "the passenger's rightward acceleration relative to the car" — which is also not true because the friction force is causing her to not accelerate relative to the car! I think I got everything right now. Eventually we will have to tackle the stone example (which, as I said before, is imprecise and/or technically wrong in several places, and duplicates [especially now] a lot of the links and phrasing of the sections above it). I plan to list my objections about that example on the article's talk page... - dcljr (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dcljr: It's getting there. Assuming the seat is frictionless, the passenger will continue in a straight line until she comes into contact with the door, at which point the contact force with the door will provide the necessary centripetal motion so her motion matches the car. It would be correct to say she still accelerates to the right even if the seat isn't frictionless if the friction force is insufficient centripetal force to follow the same curve as the car (in her frame, she would say if the friction force was less than the centrifugal force). The passenger will accelerate to the right within the car frame until some other force or combination of forces provides enough centripetal force.

A few things that I think still need tweaking. Can we please change "vehicle" in the first sentence to "car"? Leaving "vehicle" in the place emphasis in that first sentence, and then to refer to it as "car" through the rest of the paragraph leaves the whole thing feeling stunted. Also, as I touched on above, the way I had written it was correct as I had intentionally not mentioned any other force acting on the passenger as the car makes the curve. I should have been more explicit saying the assumption that the seat was frictionless, but the current text suffers from the same issue. The current text assumes that the friction force is immediately sufficient to balance the centrifugal force - in most cases it is not. I also cringe when we say the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force - this is only true when the passenger is stationary in the rotating frame but that is a very special case and tends to lead to the misconception that the centripetal and centrifugal forces are a 3rd law pair. Anyways, just some thoughts and suggestions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that we have had very different assumptions about the situation being described in the example! I was using the common, everyday experience of a person remaining in place in their seat as the car goes around the curve, not a person sliding off (or in) their seat. If you find that "in most cases" the friction force is not "immediately sufficient to balance the centrifugal force", then you're riding with some pretty reckless drivers! [wink] With this in mind, then, there is no need for the passenger to be accelerated by the car door if they can just be accelerated by the seat. That's why I was trying to avoid saying the passenger actually moves relative to the car; in my example, they do not, they only feel as if they might be and are resisting that, hence the feeling that a force is acting on them. That's also why I'm saying the friction force balances the centripetal acceleration and is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: I'm trying to stress that the apparent centrifugal force is essentially a "mislabeling" of the [effect of the] centripetal force due to the "choice" of reference frame. (And the fact that equal in magnitude and opposite in direction doesn't mean they are a Newton's-third-law pair can be explicitly pointed out in the paragraph.) I would not recommend adding an assumption of frictionless seats, since the reason I wanted to add the example in the first place was to have an entirely realistic, everyday setting in which to discuss centrifugal force. To have a realistic version of what you were describing, we'd have to either have the car going at an unsafe speed around the curve or shift the focus to an object in the car (like a cup of coffee or a ball on the floor) that begins to move as the car enters the curve. (The benefit of that would be that the apparent force is apparently "causing" an acceleration with respect to the car's reference frame. As I've said, that is not what my example was trying to deal with. I was trying to, as it were, isolate the force from the acceleration.) As for the vehicle/car issue, the first sentence says "vehicle" because it doesn't have to be a car: it can be a bus, plane, train, etc. (as alluded to in the final sentence). The general case is a vehicle changing direction, while the specific case being analyzed involves a car. See? - dcljr (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The car example is now (after being worked on by a third party) a bit wordy, but hopefully acceptable to everyone (for now). I haven't had time to devote to this (or to the stone example) since I last edited the article. Hopefully sometime in the next few weeks I can start suggesting changes to the stone example. Until then… - dcljr (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sky Letter

I've told him the next use of a talk page as a forum will probably lead to a block. He seems to be just trolling. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I see he didn't care. Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm DeusImperator. I noticed that you recently removed content from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/God_in_Mormonism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Instead of riveting the edit, discuss the reason in the Talk page on the subject. I have requested protection of that content from any revisions by you. DeusImperator (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@DeusImperator: I did explain the removal on the talk page, before the removal. I stand by my assessment that the text is not representative of the cited sources. If you are not going to engage on the talk page before reinserting text, then you are the one not following WP:BRD. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Trinity

About your latest reverts on the article please use the Talk:Trinity page which was referenced when my edits were submitted. The usage of talk pages should be the prefered method for discussion instead of the revert button. Ctmv (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ctmv: umm, I don't understand what you are going on about. My revert on the page, [3], actually fixes at least one of the issues you were ranting about on the talk page. If you are so blinded by emotion that you lashed out at me for implementing a change you actually endorsed, perhaps you need to step away from the article and talk page to cool down a bit and to realize walls of text on the talk page are not beneficial to reaching a consensus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was referring to your edit comments about the second paragraph having redundant information to the first paragraph, which I agree, and attempted a merging that was reverted. Talk:Trinity_second_paragraph and on Talk:Trinity_CS_Lewis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)