User talk:Diamondblade2008

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

London's Burning
Hello. This article is a mess. I wonder if yu would like to help Wikipedia by bringing the article up to a reasonable standard. For a start, it is in desperate need of references for all of the many assertions it makes. There is far too much in-universe information: plot, character biographies, etc. There are many good articles about television programmes on Wikipedia that you can use as a model. For instance, Friends and The Simpsons are especially good. The JPS talk to me  17:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea sure no problem. Since Im such as a massive fan of London's Burning (much of the article was written by myself) I would like to bring it up to Wiki standards. I'll take a look at those articles you have mentioned. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Centrifugal force
Are you making any sense of the replies that you have had in the centrifugal force page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good evening Martin and thank you for your message.

I saw the replies on my contribution to the centrifugal force discussion. I have sort-of understood the replies in regard to fictious and reactive centrifugal force. However I am one of those who believes centrifugal force does exist. For example using the ball and string example, if the ball is spun fast enough, the centrifugal force will cause the string to snap due to the extra tension on it. I do know what centripetal force is though.

Just a thought, if one wanted to be truly scientific, would one say "The string snapped because it is not strong enough to provide the necessary centripetal force needed to keep the ball moving in a circle?" Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence is exactly correct. It is no different from a tow rope that snaps because you try to accelerate away too quickly; there is no need to invent a mysterious new force to explain anything (so long as you are working in an inertial frame). Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I haven't had a chance to be on Wikipedia much. Like I said I do know the differences between the fictious/reactive centrifugal force and centripetal force, but i'm pretty sure that not everybody knows what centripetal force is. Anyway once again thanks for your reply and apologies for the delay in responding.

Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So what do you mean when you say that the centrifugal force does exist? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good evening Martin,

I mean that it exists as the reaction force to centripetal force, as in the wall of death example, the wall provides the centripetal force to keep the bikers going round, and the bikers exert a reactive centrifugal force on the wall so they don't fall off it. If centrifugal force really does not exist in any form, should the article about centrifugal force be removed? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, there is a centrifugally directed reaction force to the centripetal force needed to keep the biker going round, but why give it a special name?  Every force has an equal and opposite reaction but we do not give them all special names.


 * On the other hand, in a rotating frame of reference, we have to invent a new force that is always centrifugally directed and that has never existed before in order to make Newton's laws work. This force needs a special name because it is unique to rotating frames. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening Martin,

So how do you propose the centripetal/fugal articles be written to reflect modern/correct usage? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good evening.


 * I would like the article to be much as it is now but with the reaction force and Lagrangian meanings in a section called 'Alternative and historical uses of the term' or the like.


 * There have been several complaints that the article is too complex and not suitable for beginners. Starting by saying that the term has three meanings is a bad start.  There is only one meaning that is currently taught and it is that way for a reason.  The force is simply not required (to be given a special name) until the study of rotating frames.  Newton's laws do the job just fine on their own, no magic forces are required, in fact to add them only confuses. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I like to see the article with historical uses as well as the modern uses. I'm not very good at physics myself so I'm not sure on how I would help in tidying the article up. I would like to see the article simplified as like you said; it is too technical. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not an A-level textbook. I propose that a lot of the technical equations and stuff to be removed, as I'm sure most people just want an article that is easy to understand, not burying them under an avalanche of 'technical' stuff that they may not understand. What do you think? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you make the article on CF entirely below A-level standard then all it would say is 'there is no such thing as centrifugal force' because rotating reference frames are not usually studied at that level.


 * On the other hand, I am sure it would be possible to write an explanation for beginners that would explain what the (inertial) force was and how it applied to rotating frames without too much maths. This would be very useful for those who went on to study the subject at a higher level. My main point, and the one that I have been arguing on the page for some time, is that starting with three different meanings makes a simple explanation impossible.


 * The article should also cover the more technical stuff and historical and other uses of the term. WP should cover all levels of knowledge and ability as far as possible.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Afternoon Martin,

This may interest you what I learnt in Science many years ago when I was in high school. It was about why a lorry may tip over on a bend with an adverse camber. I remember learning that this is because the tyres provide the centripetal force to guide the lorry round the bend, but the reason why the lorry tips over is because the reactive centrifugal force acts on top of the lorry which is already leaning towards the outside of the curve due to the adverse camber. So to sum it up, the centripetal force acts on one direction of the lorry, while the reactive centrifugal force acts on the other direction if you see what I mean. Im interested in what your views on this. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What I am about to say is not really my views on the subject but the views of physicists in general and indeed of the article.


 * The reactive CF acts on the road and is of very little interest, except perhaps to road designers. It is just the reaction to the centripetal force so, in my opinion, it does not need a special name.


 * If you work in an inertial frame (such as the frame of the road) there is no centrifugal force acting on the lorry, and there is no need for one to explain what happens. In fact you have to ask yourself where would this mysterious would force come from if it did exist.


 * The reason that the lorry tips over is no different from the case where you attach a rope to two wheels of the lorry on one side and try to pull (accelerate) it sideways rapidly. If you did this rapidly enough the lorry would tip over.  Not because some mysterious force acts on the the top of the lorry in the other direction but simply because the top of the lorry tends to stay where it is by own inertia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence I was just going by what I was taught many years ago when I was in high school. After reading your replies in depth, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from regarding centripetal force. However there will always be people that will refer to centrifugal force in everyday conversation, such as "Centrifugal force pushes water out of the clothes during a washing machine's spin cycle" rather than "The clothes are forced round by the drum which exerts centripetal force on them and the water slips out of the clothes through the holes in the drum as it is not subject to centripetal force". You see where I am coming from regarding the use of the term "centrifugal force"? Once again, thank you for taking your time to discuss this mattere and hope we can reach a fair conclusion. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure and I would have no objection to having a section on informal usage of the term in the article, so long as it was described that way. At present we have the current usage of the term (the inertial force found only in inertial frame), the reactive force, which is a pointless, confusing, and obsolete use of the term, and the Lagrangian CF, which I think is an informal but certainly a very specialised use of the term.  It the moment it is utterly confusing to anyone who does not understand the subject.


 * What in my opinion, the article should principally do is explain the subject in the way that it is currently taught, that there is no such thing as CF except in a rotating reference frame. After this has been made clear it can explain that the term is used with other meanings, including informally to be the force that you mention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon and happy Easter Martin,

That's exactly what I like to see as well. I think the article should start with the everyday understanding use of CF, like my washing machine spin example, then progressing onto the more scientific use of centripetal force. Perhaps both the centrifugal/petal articles could be merged; firstly starting with the rotating reference frame of centrifugal force, then progressing onto what is really happening is centripetal force/inertia. What do you think? I am happy we seem to be making progress like adults and not arguing. Kind regards Diamondblade2008 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy too to discuss this subject calmly with you but there is little point in continuing here; the only place where either of us can make a difference is the article talk page. I think the article can be best improved by cooperating with other editors to make it understandable to as wide a range of readers as possible, but I strongly believe that this will only be possible when the obsolete and unhelpful reactive definition and the very specialised and informal Lagrangian use have been moved to an 'alternative meanings and history' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)