User talk:Calgea

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Pendulum (mathematics)
Thank-you for your contributions to this article. However, it appears from your comment at the top ("An alternative view by Calgea 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC))") that this may be your own pet theory rather than accepted mathematics. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original research. If you can provide some citation or references (from a reliable source) then please do so. As I'm not a mathematician, I don't know. ALso, could I say that you should generally sign talk pages, but never article pages. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pendulum (Mathematics)
Tivedshambo

“Wikipedia is not a place for publishing oringinal research.”

If I understand you correctly, Wickipedia will support widely held and documented views even if they are wrong! Reflect on the days when people thought the Earth was flat. Consider the days when Galileo Galilei said the Earth moved about the sun.

“I'm not a mathematician.”

Suppose an individual starts with the presented equation for the period (T) of a simple pendulum. He or she works backward from this equation and discovers the gravity (g) at the site of the simple pendulum is equal to a radial acceleration. This leads to a circle of constant angular velocity where the period of the circle equals the period of the pendulum. The individual then equates the radius of this circle to the length of the pendulum’s arm and imagines a system circle. Wikipedia would say it was a novel idea and throw it away!

“Also, could I say that you should generally sign talk pages, but never article pages.”

I have read your five pillars of Wikipedia. To avoid Wikipedia’s involvement in a different view of an old problem, I inserted a note suggesting my view was not the accepted view. I also signed it so readers could direct any negative comments to me and not Wikipedia. I agree Wikipedia should take a neutral view.

“A great article has to be verifiable and cite reliable sources which ideally should include books or peer reviewed journal articles.”

About being verifiable, I included a method of testing the idea the period of a simple period is not restricted to small angles. That restriction was the result of the method of determing the period (T) and not because of the pendulum itself.

I question whether anyone has verified the equation for a simple pendulum when an author posts comments like the following. “The rod/string/cable on which the bob is swinging is massless and always remains taut.” If one uses a string for the arm of the pendulum, it will lengthen as it moves toward the vertical. Since the period (T) depends on the length (L), how scientific can this be?

About peer review, I have e-mailed professors in many universities about my ideas with negative results. My friends do not agree with me. I have written a novel containing my ideas, but I have not found an agent yet. I’m still looking for an agent while I work on my third volume. Meanwhile, I thought I would use Wikipedia to provide the world with an alternative view of pendulums and such.

Given the above, if you wish to delete my contribution, please do so. I will live with the rejection and have no hard feelings against Wikipedia. Calgea 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are quite right about Galileo. If Wikipedia had been around then he wouldn't have been able to publish his theories on it. Wikipedia, by its own admission, is about verifiability, not truth. This is both a strength and a weakness. I'll delete your section as you admit it was original research, but you might like to discuss your ideas at the mathematics reference desk where more knowledgable experts will be avble to help you. ANother place you might like to try is Wikiversity at http://en.wikiversity.org, as I understand original research is acceptable there.


 * I hope you don't take this rejection personally, and are able to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)