User talk:FyzixFighter/Archive 3

Uniform acceleration and centrifugal force
I'm offended because I tried to contribute to the talk page and the talk page section wouldn't let me contribute and I made a valid point. There has to be a centrally directed "centrifugal force" applied to the water by the constraining bucket, Because at the point of contact of say a molecule of water against the constraining side of the bucket,the bucket material is moving along the tangent line and probably at the same velocity as the water particle. And yet the dv/dt of the particle is along a perpendicular line towards the center of the circle. So in accordance with Newton's laws, there has to be a force in the direction of acceleration, Unless you want to argue against Newton's laws of motion.WFPM (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) And you might get involved with the interaction of some very small particles in the process. But that is just details.


 * I don't know why you couldn't edit on the talk page. You should be able to be first clicking the "discussion" tab at the top of a page and then "edit this page" while you're looking at the talk page. As to your arguments about the centrifugal force, you seem to be saying to different, contradictory things. By definition a centrifugal force is directed outward - a centripetal force is directed inward. In the text I removed, you implied that there are two forces acting on the water. If both these forces are acting on the water in opposite directions, then the net force would be zero, and therefore (according to Newton's laws) the acceleration would also be zero. But the acceleration in a circular orbit is inward, so the net force has to be inward. Newton's laws of motion are a good place to start, so let's look at the motion of a circular orbit and see what the total force acting on the object has to be. In a circular orbit the radius is constant so $$\dot r=\frac{dr}{dt}=0$$. The rotation rate is also constant so $$\ddot\theta=\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=0$$. Newton's second law tells us that the net force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, or
 * $$\Sigma \vec F=m\ddot \vec r$$
 * Remember that this is a vector equation, so let's just look at the radial components of the equation. To get the radial acceleration we first should get the full vector acceleration using calculus like Newton by taking time derivatives of the position vector. The first time derivative gives:
 * $$\dot \vec r=\dot r\hat r+r\dot\theta\hat\theta$$
 * And a second derivative gives:
 * $$\ddot \vec r=\ddot r\hat r+2\dot r\dot\theta\hat\theta+r\ddot\theta\hat\theta-r\dot\theta^2\hat r$$
 * Applying the values we know to be zero for circular orbits we get
 * $$\ddot \vec r=-r\dot\theta^2\hat r$$
 * Combining this with Newton's 2nd Law we find that the net force on an object in circular orbit is $$mr\dot\theta^2$$ inward. Whatever the forces acting on the object the sum of the forces has to give that value and be inward. If both a centrifugal and a centripetal force are acting on the water in the bucket and both those forces are the same size (but in opposite directions) then it is impossible to satisfy this condition. I could also cites tons of basic physics textbooks which address this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Stupid me. I pushed the Discussion button but not the edit button so the edit signs didn't show up at their expected (by me) locations so I thought I couldn't get in. Is it possible to get them into the talk section? Now as to the subject matter. My Robeson says that particles moving in a circular path are in a centrifugal force going outward, so the water moves to the bottom of the tilted bucket. But after a small particle gets in contact with the outward side of the bucket it is forced to accelerate in an inward direction by a centripetal force transferred to the particle by the material of the bucket, and I think that's what I said.WFPM (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC) But I'll leave it up to you how to deal with my misplaced talk contributions. But I still think my points were valid.WFPM (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) And I didn't say the forces were equal, just that they were contrary. Because of course the centripetal force overpowers the centrifugal force and causes the particle to accelerate inward.


 * I don't think I have access to the Robeson text so I can't comment on what he is or isn't saying. I also apologize, I thought that you had said that the centrifugal force and the centripetal force were the same size. For me there are two points against the idea of a centrifugal force as you have described it. The first being that there is no source or originating body for the force. All other forces are due in some way to one of the four fundamental forces - strong, weak, gravity, and electromagnetism (EM would include contact and friction forces) which originate from some other object or source. So what object is exerting the centrifugal force on the water? I would agree that there is a centrifugal "reaction" force that the water exerts on the bucket, but I still don't see a source or cause for a centrifugal force on the body of water. The second point is that experimental measurement don't require its existence. For example, people have done experiments where a strain gauge is placed in the tether of an object being swung around in a circle and the tension in the tether matches up with the expected centripetal force, so no centrifugal force is needed in the net force summation of Newton's second law. Also we can look at other conical orbits with 1/r central potentials - the planets for example. Kepler's laws of planetary motion can be derived from Newton's laws and the only force that is assumed to be acting on the planets is a centripetal gravitational force but no centrifugal force. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well what do you think about the Acceleration and force in circular motion article about the ability of people to walk about on the sidewall of a rotary space station due to the centrifugal force pulling them toward the wall? It's a reference article in Talk:Centrifugal force. that I tried to use to argue in favor of the existence of a real functional centrifugal force under certain physical conditions. Can you get along without that concept? or maybe you can solve the problem by eliminating me from the discussion, by saying that a talk discussion is not about the subject matter, but about the composition of the subject of the matter. And if a strain gauge measures a retaining force in the tether, what about Newton's third law?WFPM (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at that article you will see that the centrifugal force it refers to in the section on the rotating space station is not the same centrifugal force that you are advocating for. In that section of the article, it uses the phrase centrifugal force to refer to the very real Reactive centrifugal force, which forms a third law pair with the centripetal force. Note that the text says that the person exerts a centrifugal force on the ground and not that the centrifugal force is being exerted on the person. The ground exerts an inward (centripetal) contact force on the person, so the person exerts an outward (centrifugal) contact force on the floor. This is different from your description where the centripetal force and the centrifugal force are both acting on the person. Do you see how this is different from the type of centrifugal force you are describing? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Now let's see. In the case of me with relation to the earth, there is a real force (of gravity) that pushes me towards the center of the earth's mass, and incidentally towards the floor. And that real force is called a centrifugal force on the ground (that's what you just said). And the ground counteracts that by pushing me back with a counteracting centripetal force,(due to Newton's third law). Of course the rotation factor of the earth should act to counteract those two forces but it's insignificant and can be ignored. And in the space station, the "reactive centrifugal force" that pulls me towards the wall of the space station is not a real force because it is not the force of gravity but rather some way the wall of the station has been able to move and restrict my normal transitional tangential path through space. And if I were standing on a weight scale on the wall of the space station and noticed the indication on the scale, I still couldn't say that there's a force pulling me towards the wall, because that's that's not the way it really is. But I bring up the concept that the interacting forces acting between masses are not contact forces but rather due to the interaction of forces in space, such that at the point of near approach of my body to the wall, the matter of the wall must be creating a spacial force of summary repulsion to the mass particles of my body, such that the distribution of that force on the rest of my body's mass particles allows me to move around normally. And if I narrow down the focus of attention to the area of near contact of my body to the wall I cant say that those particles are being acted on by 2 contrary forces because that isn't the way it really is. But I rest my case on the concept of what is happening to an individual particle at a point near the wall, where it is moving tangentially to the orbit of the space station plus at the same time being acted on by an angular momentum derived force against the wall and countered by a contrary repulsive interactive force between it and the particles of the wall. And I can't see that those forces are any more unreal than the force of gravitational attraction.WFPM (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really are misunderstanding some basic newtonian mechanics. You are conflating forces exerted by objects with those exerted on objects. The force of gravity is exerted on you, not on the ground. In the case of you stand on the earth, the earth exerts a gravitational force inward on you. The 3rd law reaction of this is the gravitational force that exert on the earth. The ground also exerts a outward normal contact force on you, and the 3rd law reaction to this is the inward normal contact force you exert on the ground. (I only said in the case of the space station that the force exerted by you on the ground is a real "reactive" centrifugal force - for you on the earth the force exerted by you on the ground is a real centripetal force because it is directed inward). Four forces in total, only two of which are acting on you and that need to be considered to figure out your acceleration and motion. As I tried to make myself very clear, on the space station the "reactive centrifugal force" doesn't pull you - it is the force that you exert on the walls/ground of the space station. It feels like a force because you are in a rotating frame of reference, but a person floating stationary in space outside the station will see no force there - the person will merely see your body trying to move in a straight line due to inertia, and the station ground constantly getting in the way. The scale measures real forces - it measures the force that the ground exerts on you, and the force that you exert on the ground (this is the reactive force which is centrifugal in the case of the space station) which have the same value. Even on earth this is true, a standard bathroom scale measures the two contact forces and not the actual force of gravity, and that's why you get strange readings when you're accelerating up or down in an elevator. Remember that stationary observer outside the space station, if that person took the force measurement from the scale and plugged just that force into Newton's 2nd law he would get the correct acceleration for you indicating that the only force acting on you is the inward force from the ground. This is true even at the particle level you want to talk about. An individual particle at a point near the wall feels a force from the ground pushing it inward, and that same particle exerts an equal and opposite force on the ground pushing the ground outward. You are right there are two real forces, but they are acting on different objects. There is no force pushing the particle up against the wall - angular momentum doesn't create a force - due to inertia the particle wants to move in a straight line, but the station wall keeps pushing into it. When applying Newton's 2nd law only the repulsive interactive force is needed in the net force side of the equation to get the acceleration correct. Again, if you're going to try to use the article in question, you need to read it carefully and pay attention to what object it is saying forces are being exerted on and what object exerts that force. The reference article you mentioned is very clear that the centrifugal force it mentions in the space station scenario is exerted BY the person ON the ground, not ON the person as you are wanting to believe. There is a big difference there. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I like your explanation and why don't you try it out on DVdm in the article on Centrifugal force and see what he says. Because I tried your argument on him and he threw me out. And I think there ought to be understandable explanations of phenomena in Wiki's articles that I can gather up and discuss and maybe make some sense of.WFPM (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From my reading of your interactions on the talk page, no you did not try the same argument that I explained above. You were advocating that a real centrifugal force acts on objects moving in circular motion. Two points: 1) If you read my explanation carefully, I never argue this - I only argue that there is a real centrifugal force that objects moving circular motion can exert on whatever is providing the centripetal force, ie a reactive centrifugal force. There is no force pushing a person against the wall of the space station nor a force that pushes water against the wall of a spinning bucket nor a force that pushes the swings on the carnival ride out. 2) These are all inertial effects that look like forces only when the observer is in a co-rotating (or any other rotating) frame, but in the inertial frame it is just the particle moving in a straight line and the wall/bucket/rope exerting a force to push/pull it away from straight line motion. Forces are those things which go into $$\sum F$$ in Newton's 2nd law. The inertial effects are in the components of the acceleration vector and are not forces. The Centrifugal force article already covers both of these points.
 * Consider an elevator where you momentarily feel heavier as it begins to accelerate upwards. Does this mean that there is an extra force pushing you downwards? No, but what has happened is the force upward of the ground on you is now greater than the force downward of gravity so that the net force is upward. You think that there is a force because you are in an accelerated reference frame (Newton's laws don't apply when using the coordinate system tied to an accelerated reference frame) and you mistake the effects of inertia as an additional force. However, if we ask a person standing on the ground, they will say that you are not be pulled down into the floor of the elevator, but that the floor of the elevator is being pulled up into you. The same thing applies to all these rotation examples. The centrifugal force you want to exist is an illusion caused by adopting a coordinate system tied to a rotating frame and mistaking inertial effects as forces. That's why it's called a fictitious/pseudo/inertial force and not a real force. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well let's narrow down the focus of attention to the forces on a particle of my body as it nears the material of the space station sidewall. Now at that both my body and the sidewall are moving in the same direction at the same time. And Newton's first law says they should continue along this line of travel. But they don't. And that is because the material of the wall starts accelerating my body in an orthogonal direction from the wall. This is the centripetal force. Now when the centripetal force acts on the influenced particles of my body, they have the property called inertia, which requires that a force proportional to their mass be applied to them and cause them to accelerate in the direction of the force. And in the case of the whirling swing, the absence of a restraining wall results in the continued tangential motion of my body until a similar situation of parallel motion is achieved by an interaction with the gravitational force. And then this situation results in a continued parallel travel of the 2 systems until the apparatus starts slowing down. And as it slows down the v squared/r magnitude of the inertia value reduces and the whirling system moves back in the direction of non whirling (rotational) stability. So you never need a concept of a real centrifugal force in the direction away from the center of motion, except as a "equal and opposite" inertial caused opposition to motion force as required by Newton's third law. And that makes sense and is understandable, if we could just get into the subject matter discussion in the article. But it is obviously NOR and POV and not notable and no reliable source and also those other reasons for it to not intrude in the generalized and more elaborate discussions re the diversified aspects and consensual opinions about this subject matter.WFPM (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I would agree with your description except on two points. 1) The inertial effects that I think you are talking about are never a real force - they only look like a force for an observer in the rotating frame - because in the stationary frame they appear as part of mass*acceleration in Newton's 2nd law. 2) The force pairs of Newton's 3rd law never act on the same object, so the "equal and opposite" force to the centripetal force acting on your body or on the whirling swings will not be one that is also acting on your body or the whirling swings. The "equal but opposite" 3rd law force therefore is real but is never the force that you've been talking about (which is the inertial effects seen from a rotating frame). Again, this description is already in the numerous (IMO too numerous) articles on centrifugal force. If you think that this needs elucidation in the article then you have a couple of different routes - 1) proposing text to be included on the talk page including what references your relying on and see where the discussion goes, 2) be bold and make the edit and switch to option 1 if you get reverted (see WP:BRD), 3) present a quote from the reference on some aspect that you don't think is covered in the article and see where discussion goes, or 4) succinctly indicate specific parts of the article that you think aren't clear and see where discussion goes. Discussion of content you want to add is always easier if coupled with a reference. However, do not expect others to go through the details of basic physics for you. One of the reasons on this topic in particular why other editors may be a bit short with you is because of the protracted debate with a single editor who had a knack for incivility, for ignoring references, and for making similar arguments that you appear to be making. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I have a funny feeling about this. Because I wanted to know more about science, and of course Wikipedia is a good source of information. And I was welcomed and urged to contribute. And they let me have a forum for my models, for which I am grateful. And so I'm trying to be as helpful as I can in the talk sections by participating in the the organization and hopefully understanding of the subject matter therein. And I think that's because that besides the normal engineering and science books that you get with an education, I read a lot of Isaac Asimov science literature and agreed with him about the importance of understanding as much as you can as a way of staying in and enjoying thinking about the subject matters. But I'm in the position of Meno's slave in the that rather than learn a lot of factual information that convinces me about something, I wind up learning about more things that I didn't know about and about the degree of unsureness regarding their existence and activities. And so I'm not a POV crusader, And if you disagree with me that's fine. But As is the case with the Centrifugal force I like to have my points of argument at least considered and then discarded (A la Linus Pauling) before categorical assertions are made in the articles. And in the context of these atomic force phenomena my mind keeps turning and I could carry the argument on down into the force interchange between 2 particles and argue as to whether it is important to know which is approaching which as a means of telling a real force from a pseudo force. So as soon as I assimilate what I have learned I,ll calm down about what I haven't learned. And maybe spend more time on what my wife says that I really should be doing. So thank you. And you might read the section in my talk page about " Irish current" and tell me how I could have handled that.WFPM (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on article Talk page.
Hi. Just letting you know that I accepted your suggestion to discuss my edits to the section on the LDS article. Please see my comments on the article's Talk page. I'm willing to dialogue on any specific you take exception to. I noticed that your marked your reversal of my edit as a minor edit. This appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy: "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." I look forward to a positive discussion on this article. Scoopczar (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize, you are right I mislabeled it as a minor edit. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:3RR as you did 4 reverts (all of your 4 recent edits to the article reinstated your removal of the original sin text) in less than 24hrs. Additionally, while not a required policy, if we are following a WP:BRD pattern for disagreement resolution, you should wait until after discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page before reinstating a challenged edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Likewise, I apologize for the 4 reverts. I am new to editing and was ignorant of that policy. I will seek consensus if possible. As I posted on the article talk page, I see your new heading "Comparisons with mainstream Christianity" as NPOV and think it serves well. Other edit points I suppose I'll take one at a time. For example, please comment on what I wrote on the article talk page about the Original Sin issue. The LDS view clearly stands apart from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views. It does not belong in a list of shared doctrines. The LDS view of the Fall is that no sin was involved. That view is unique and bears no resemblance to any of the major streams of Christianity. Again, not saying who is right or wrong--just saying the views don't match. Scoopczar (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, FyzixFighter. Just a quick note to let you know that I finally got back to you on the LDS talk page. Scoopczar (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
"umm..that was your 4th rv in 24 hrs" Were you talking to me? This was my first revert in this most recent flurry on this always controverial topic. I restored the material to a version dated 21st of May, after stating a basic opinion and suggesting that the discussion would be better suited to the article on Mormonism and Christianity. I would appreciate your continued support in toning down the activity on the topic. WBardwin (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - no I wasn't talking to you but intended that revert summary for the other user, Scoopczar. While I was undoing their edit (again) I started to look at the awkward placement of that subsection within the larger section and then decided to change the orders of the subsections. Strangely though WP didn't give an edit conflict warning (or if it did I failed to notice it). It wasn't until I double-checked the article history that I noticed you had restored the 21st May version before me. So again, apologize for the mix up. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University
I am simple stating that BYU has been referred to as the Harvard of the West. It is obvious that this is a true, indisputable fact (that it has been referred as such, not that it actually is the Harvard of the West)and I don't understand why you continue to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.82.66 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Disputes at wikipedia are natural and are not unusual. However, resolution of disputes should be handled on the Talk page and not in an edit war (see WP:BRD). I would more than gladly participate in the discussion of the references (only half of which qualify as reliable sources) on the article talk page and not here. Additionally, you have now reverted 4 times in the last 24hrs, a violation of the WP:3RR policy. Please revert ourself and take this issued to the article talk page. Once it is discussed and a consensus is reached, appropriate edits can be made. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate References on LDS
I didn't read your comment about duplication until after I got out of editing mode due to the edit conflict of us being on at the same time. Sorry about that. I agree, there was duplication. My new footnote has only new citations. Scoopczar (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I still have a few problems with the added footnote. First, Orthodoxwiki is as much a reliable source as Mormonwiki, ie it's not and should not be used here. Provide a reliable source for the Orthodox view or remove this link. Second, your added footnote should be combined with the previous footnote so that all the statements are combined within a single reference. And last, why do we need another Lutheran statement? We already have one from the ELCA, the largest Lutheran church in the US, so I see no need for an additional Lutheran reference. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Salvation Discussion
I'm not sure if this sent you a message to let you know that I replied to your post on my page, I'm still s little new. Just wanted to let you know, thanks again.--Alan355 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Factors affecting DNA composition of the New World population
You have removed the references to academic restrictions twice. I will admit the first revision I put was a bit editorial and lacked references. The second however I thought would suffice. The information I was adding would help with the neutrality of the section. It was a direct quote from the university's website. How can it be included and have a NPOV that you will accept? 203.28.106.137 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I signed up with a username Rockjob (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the purpose of your editorial is to assert the view that Whiting's statements are suspect because he works at BYU, then it fails both NPOV and OR. In terms of NPOV, I don't see how editorial neutrality is served by adding your edits. One way neutrality is achieved is by attributing statement, in this case saying who and where which the article already does, and not by original arguments for why the source is unreliable. Also your edit reads as an attempt to participate in the debate, rather than describe the debate. In terms of OR, you're synthesizing, albeit not overtly. In this case you're combining two sourced statements, Whiting's comments and BYU's policy, to imply an original conclusion, that Whiting's comments are not valid. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I understand what you are saying about the NPOV now. I do agree despite the academic restrictions at the university, what he has said could be his own beliefs and without influence from superiors. I'm fine with his statements, but you can not ignore the fact that his career would suffer in that environment if he had published anything neutral or negative. I guess this is where I get confused about the NPOV. This is how I understand it: His original paper would not pass NPOV, but using quotes from his paper does pass NPOV. Is this correct? Rockjob (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing parts of the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. NPOV deals not with whether the sources are neutral or not (in truth, all sources have some bias), or in other words if they are reliable, but with the editorial neutrality of how information is presented. To quote from the policy page, "Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." To say that his original paper would not pass NPOV is meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion of NPOV here on WP. What matters in terms of NPOV is whether or not the opinion is attributed or not (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Wikipedia is not saying whether Whiting is wrong or right, it is merely presenting his statements as a "Book of Mormon defender" (according to the section title) in the debate. To try and qualify whether Whiting should be believed or not begins to enter into participating in rather than describing the debate, not mention begins to enter the realm of original synthesis on our part. The only thing that we need to determine with respect to Whiting's paper is whether or not it satisfies the standards for reliable sources. But in terms of NPOV, a "biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view." Since the statements are both attributed to Whiting as a professor at BYU and placed within the "Book of Mormon defender" section, I do not see how the current sentence violates NPOV. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University (2)
If you undo my edits a thrid time, all of which are supported by citations and not merely POV, I will move to have you blocked from this article. Don't just delete uncomfortable truths. Respond to them with facts. Eckeman (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand some core Wikipedia policies, namely WP:NPOV and WP:OR (specifically the section on synthesis. All your edits violate one, if not both, of these. I am more than willing to discuss how your edits do this on the article's talk page as suggested by WP:BRD. Also, consider this a warning: you have now reverted 3 times in the last four hours - another revert by you reinserting edit in the next 20 hours will cross the line of WP:3RR and you will be reported and likely blocked, just as you were last year for doing the same thing. In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if you are right, WP:3RR is a rule you must follow or you will be blocked. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand them well. WP:NPOV means that an article on BYU must not merely be a glowing advertisement which expunges all matters of controversy as you and others have tried to do. I am merely adding factual material to counterbalance your uncritical adulation of the institution. WP:OR means that all the material that is added must be attributable to a reliable published source. Every one of my edits is supported in such a way. Why don't you take the time to actually check my reference weblinks rather than resorting to intimidation when your own POV is challenged? I'm more than happy to work toward synthesis but have not seen any good faith efforts to do so from BYU's uncritical admirers. Eckeman (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Force contribution
Could you please transfer my undone contribution re this subject matter to the talk page per your recommendation? Thank you.WFPM (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the LDS Church article
Hi-- I'm attempting a rebuild of the [|Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] article. I saw that you have been involved in editing this page.

Currently there are interwoven pro and con sections that I'm hoping to better integrate. There are also issues related to repetition of some points. (i.e. the article in many places restated the same points about homsexual activity violating the Law of Chastity, and descriptions of chastity). There are also dead links now that the church has migrated the Newsroom site.

Some of my first changes were made without edit summaries (which is a big mistake on my part). I have included a summary of those changes and a bit of rationale on the Discussion Page. I have re-posted below. If you have any concerns about those changes, let's talk it through.

I'd appreciate any feedback or help you can offer. Thanks! Adkinsc1 (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Electromagnetic Force on a charged particle in a changing magnetic field
FyzixFighter, I'm interested in the reasons which you gave for that amendment which you did at Magnetic Field. I'm sure we both agree that the force in question on a static charge in a changing magnetic field is one of the terms in the Lorentz force. And I'm sure we're further agreed that it is the -(partial)dA/dt term. And I'm sure that we're further agreed that this is commonly referred to as an induced electric force, or electromotive force. What I want to know is, 'how do you not see that phenomenon as being a means of detecting the existence of a magnetic field?'. I was listing the manners in which the existence of the magnetic field could be detected, and that is one of those manners. The changing magnetic field leads to an induced electric field. It seems that your objection is based on a very subtle play on words, in that the force which is induced by a changing magnetic field, although commonly referred to as an electric force, is in your opinion not suitable for being classified as a being a magnetic force too, because the modern textbooks specifically refer to it as being an electric force. Is this just an issue of the terminologies that you have read in modern sources? In other words, because the textbooks say that a changing magnetic field induces an electric force, then that electric force is not a force which is detecting the presence of a magnetic field? David Tombe (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since a basic principle of wikipedia is verifiability, reliance on modern sources is a perfectly legitimate reason for saying that the force on a stationary particle is an electric force, even if that electric field is induced by a time-varying magnetic field. But further, there are situations were you can get a force on a stationary particle due to such an induced electric field and the magnetic field at the particle is constantly zero. For example, see Example 7.8 (pp. 306-307) in Griffith's "Introduction to Electrodynamics" (3rd Ed). --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I know that the modern textbooks call it an electric force. It is an electric force induced by a changing magnetic field. My question to you was 'how is that force not a manner in which the magnetic field manifests itself?'. The introduction was listing the situations in which a magnetic field exerts a force. If that force just happens to be called an 'electric force', it doesn't mean that it isn't a force which is caused by a magnetic field. David Tombe (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an electric force because it is still exerted by an electric field, albeit the source of the electric field is a time-varying magnetic field. Again, see pp. 305-307 in Griffith. The Lorentz force law is the de facto definition of electric and magnetic fields. Therefore the force on a stationary particle is exerted by an electric field, but the law says nothing about the source of the field. By the same reasoning we say that the velocity dependent force on a moving charge is strictly a magnetic force exerted by a magnetic field, regardless of whether the magnetic field exerting the force is from a magnet, current, or time-varying electric field. As Griffith notes in his example involving charges being pushed by an induced electric field:
 * "It's the electric field that did the rotating. To convince you of this I deliberately set things up so that the magnetic field is always zero at the location of the charge (on the rim). The experimenter may tell you she never put in any electric fields-all she did was switch off the magnetic field. But when she did that, an electric field automaticallyh appeared, and it's this electric field that turned the wheel."
 * See also note 9 on the bottom of page 305 in Griffith. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I know that they call it an electric force. We are not arguing about that. The question is this,

When a changing magnetic field induces an electric force, is that a manifestation of a magnetic field?

And if 'yes', then why did you erase that phrase from my edit at magnetic field yesterday? David Tombe (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you could say that the induced electric force is a manifestation of a magnetic field, or better that the changing magnetic field is the source of the induced electric field that exerts the force. But the sentence in question said that the magnetic field is detected by the force it exerts on stationary charges (with the caveat about changing magnetic fields). This is false. The changing magnetic field generates an electric field and it is the electric field that exerts the force on the stationary charge. In the two previous examples in the list (forces exerted on currents and moving particles) the magnetic field has to exist at the same location as the particle to exert the force. For stationary particles, the time-varying magnetic field does not have to be at the same location as the particle, but the induced electric field does. As shown by the example in Griffiths, the time-varying magnetic field can be far away, and still "manifest" on the particle outside the magnetic field. Seeing a charge-dependent force on a stationary charge tells you only about the electric field at that location, but tells you nothing about the magnetic field (changing or not) at that location. The effect you seem to be describing, that changing magnetic fields can be the source of electric fields, is covered in a later paragraph of the intro. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, You said,

''But the sentence in question said that the magnetic field is detected by the force it exerts on stationary charges (with the caveat about changing magnetic fields). This is false''

The sentence is true. If a changing magnetic field exerts a force on a stationary particle, then we have detected a magnetic field. David Tombe (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, if a force is felt by a stationary charge, what you have detected is a an electric field at that location. You need additional information/assumptions to say that you have detected a magnetic field, and that magnetic field may not be at the location of the charge. Also, it's impossible to distinguish whether the force on the stationary charge is due to an electric field generated by another charge or by a changing magnetic field. All we can definitively say is that we've detected an electric field at the point. Likewise, when we see a velocity dependent force on a moving charge, all we can definitively say is that we've detected a magnetic field, but we cannot say we've detected a current or a changing electric field. My removal of the edit is supported by sources - magnetic fields do not exert forces on stationary charges, but they can generate electric fields that in turn exert forces on stationary charges. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Nobody is talking about identifying whether a particular electric field arises from a changing magnetic field or from a neighbouring static electric charge. The introduction was identifying all the manifestations of a magnetic field. And when a changing magnetic field causes an electric field, that is a manifestation of a magnetic field. So why did you remove that particular manifestation? David Tombe (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the sentence read that the magnetic field exerts a force on a stationary charge. This is false - magnetic fields do not exert forces on stationary charges. That one manifestation of the magnetic field is an electric field if the magnetic field varies in time is already covered in a later paragraph. If you still don't get it, take this over to WP:PHYS because I'm done trying to explain it to you - I've presented sources that explain the distinction as well as tried myself to explain the distinction to you. All you do is present your own understanding as the basis for your arguments. If you want to start reasoning from sources, then we can continue, otherwise I've said my piece and see no reason to keep repeating myself and to keep referring to the same reliable sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I do see what you are saying. You are saying that the magnetic field doesn't exert a force on the static charge, but rather that it induces an electric field which exerts a force on the static charge. But this is rather a case of semantics. I am not doubting that the modern sources refer to this force as an electric force, and likewise that they refer to the force on a moving charged particle as a magnetic force. But at the end of the day, the magnetic field exerts a force in both situations. And due to a play on words, which of course is not your doing, you have introduced an intermediatory mechanism in one case but not in the other. That's fine. I now understand why you did your revert.

May I now make a suggestion? In future when you have an issue of this calibre, why not try to re-word it in such a way as to overcome your concerns. At the end of the day, irrespective of the terminologies, the effect is still a magnetic field effect and so it should be listed with the other magnetic field effects. If you felt strongly about the terminology issue, then all you had to do was re-word it something along the lines of,

It is detected by the force which it exerts on other magnetic materials, moving electric charges, and also by the electric force which it induces on static charges in cases where the magnetic field is changing.

And as you seem to be very concerned about perfection on the magnetic field article, I will not disturb you any further because from the looks of things at that article, you have got your work cut out for you for the forseeable future. David Tombe (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did consider rewording it, but noticed that the induction of electric fields by time-varying magnetic fields was already mentioned later in the introduction. And as to having my work cut out for me, factor into this real life concerns - school, work, my younger sister just recently starting physical therapy/rehab after being in the ICU for 25 days (very serious car accident), etc - and I haven't been able to devote as much time (and some might say patience) as I'd like. I chip in where and when I can. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, Well I hope that none of the injuries which your sister suffered will be permanent. Anyway, let me give you a little bit of advice as regards editing physics topics such as magnetic field. One thing you don't write in such an article is the fact that it is very complicated. I know that it wasn't you who wrote that, but that sentence will eventually have to be removed. The topic is indeed complicated but nevertheless there is an order behind it, and the idea is to try and break down the components of this order and present them in a concise fashion such as to help the readers to understand this complicated topic without actually telling them that it is complicated.

Ultimately it is about describing the magnetic field and all the forces which arise from the magnetic field. That of course includes the tricky topics of paramagnetic and diamagnetic force. From a mathematical perspective, we have one single equation that groups all these magnetic forces into two groups. That is,


 * $$\mathbf{F} = q \left(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}- \frac { \partial \mathbf{A} } { \partial t }\right)$$

The textbooks may well call the first term the magnetic force and the second term the electric force. And so by all means use those names. But it doesn't actually matter whether we call them Pinky and Perky. They are both electromagnetic forces and manifestations of the magnetic field, and the choice of the name electric force for the second term doesn't introduce any middle man into the mechanism.

Diamagnetism, magnetic repulsion, the force on a current carrying wire, and the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field will all come under the jurisdiction of Pinky whereas the force on a static particle in a changing magnetic field will come under the jurisdiction of Perky.

The idea is to get these manifestations listed, including ferromagnetic attraction and the alignment of a bar magnet in a magnetic field which Maxwell actually attributed to a version of the term in the Lorentz force which is missing from the above equation. Once the main points are summarized early on in the article, the chaf can all then be removed, but carefully checking for points of interest which can be retained. That's how it is done. David Tombe (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it a detective issue or a manifestation issue?
FyzixFighter, regarding your revert at Magnetic field, I can see your point to a certain degree, but there was no need for a wholesale revert. The issue which you have raised could have been dealt with by a slight change of wording. You are saying that the detection of an electric field on a stationary charged particle does not necessarily mean that it has arisen from a changing magnetic field. Correct. But the lead was describing the manners in which the magnetic field is manifested. The electric field which is induced by a changing magnetic field is a manifestation of a magnetic field. This is not a detective game. It's about presenting the facts. The facts are that an electric field induced by a changing magnetic field is a manifestation of a magnetic field. Now if the wording was in any way ambiguous, you could have changed it somehow so as to use the word 'manifest' instead of 'detect'. David Tombe (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy
Feel free to join in on the talk page to discuss your interest in this article and edits to avoid an edit war. --EarlySquid (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reported For Edit Waring On Brigham Young Article
You have been reported for edit waring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please consider accepting a compromise on the Mormon-related articles
I made the following proposal to Mormography. He appears to have rejected it. Since your reverts are definitely competing with his, I make the same offer to you: "It seems to me that you broke WP:3RR on two different articles: Succession crisis and Brigham Young. If you will respond at WP:AN3 and promise to stop edit warring, the closing admin might take this into account. You should agree to wait for consensus on the talk page (of Mormon-related articles) before making any changes that might be controversial. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)" If you will accept this, you may be able to avoid sanctions at AN3. If you think forever is too long, how about promising not to revert any Mormon related articles without prior consensus for at least thirty days? A four-against-three revert situation could easily lead to both parties being blocked for edit warring, even if you yourself did not reach four reverts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything always clearer after stepping away for awhile. Yes, my recent behavior on those articles has contributed to the edit warring and I apologize for that. I intend to pursue some of the additional avenues of dispute resolution, which I admit I should have employed before the disagreement got to where it is now. I don't know if I can agree to not revert without prior consensus in every instance, but I will to commit to better following WP:BRD and limiting myself to a single revert followed by discussion and not get into a back and forth reverting scenario even if the other user re^2-verts. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger
I explained on the talk page why I thought the addition of "Orrison Smith" was WP:UNDUE, but I think a sentence could be a footnote somewhere if we can mention that no reliable source mentions this fellow.--John Foxe (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone
I haven't interacted with Foxe in the past, but agree that he probably warrants some attention. I've blocked Routerone twice before, once indefinitely and once for a week: he promises to stop edit-warring to get unblocked, and then edit-wars again. I don't see any hope. Do you?&mdash;Kww(talk) 10:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When someone has the wherewithal and the authority to do something, but only suggests that others do that something, frankly that's a cop out. You as an admin can very easily look at Foxe's recent behavior, make a judgement and do something similar to what you've done with Routerone. I'm not saying that Routerone's block is unmerited. I am saying that I don't understand how both can come off the same block, both engage in edit warring behavior and yet Routerone is the only one coming off with harsh consequences while John Foxe gets his umpteenth warning. Take Routerone out of the equation for a minute. You have an editor who has violated 3RR five times in five weeks on one page, and this is not edit warring with a single other user, but with at least a half-dozen other editors. No other editor has crossed the 3RR line on this same page during that same time period. The last 3RR incident comes right after the editor comes off of a short edit warring block. Is this editor's behavior chronic edit warring? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would still love to hear your thoughts on John Foxe's behavior. I'd also add this thought - I don't see any hope that someone who clearly states that "I do believe Mormons here are 'desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins.' " will ever be capable of collaborative editing on LDS articles without edit warring. Do you? --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been hoping to see a consensus appear at your 3RR report, and am unhappy that none occurred. I wind up sometimes in positions where my hands aren't quite tied, but close. John Foxe has been asked not to edit the lede of that article any further, and, at the time I looked at it, was obeying that request. He still seems to be. No consensus has developed to block him. I'll keep a closer eye on Foxe's behaviour. I have some small hope that with Duke53 (from the anti-LDS side) and Routerone (from the pro-LDS side) both indefinitely blocked that this area will calm down.
 * As for your question: I think every church has details from its early history that it would prefer not to discuss, and see no reason to believe the Saints to be an exception. It's important that editors that aren't inclined to do so edit the articles. That doesn't give anyone license to edit war, though. The general reason that John Foxe has gotten away with what he has is that he appears to be fairly objective, compared to, for example, Duke53, whose hatred of the LDS was blindingly obvious to anyone that looked over his edits, or Routerone, whose devotion to the LDS was blindingly obvious to anyone that looked over his edits. That makes it understandable that John Foxe's contribution to the overall problem hasn't been dealt with harshly in the past.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with waiting for consensus at the 3RR report is that another admin closed as "moot" within ~45 minutes of me filing it. I'm not still not exactly clear why, since Foxe's response to the Tedder's warning really isn't an agreement to stop warring. IMO the "moot" closing is probably not really helping invite people to comment since it looks like it's closed (see EdJonston's second comment).
 * I understand you reasoning for not blocking Foxe, Tedder did warn him and he stopped. But by that same logic, Routerone had stopped editing the lead also following the Tedder's warning and was involved in discussion on the talk page. So I still fail to see how Routerone's actions were more egregious than Foxe's given this was Foxe's fifth 3RR violation in a short period of time. I guess I just can't see yet how one can characterize Routerone's behavior as chronic edit warring (I'm not saying that it isn't) and yet not say the same thing about John Foxe's. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It came down to the situation where Routerone's edit was in place and John Foxe was showing restraint by not reverting it. If the timing had been different and Routerone had been the one showing restraint by not reverting an edit of John Foxe's, I certainly would have taken that into account.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do you know that Routerone wasn't showing restraint following Tedder's warning? John Foxe had previously done two rapid-fire reverts of edits (one of which was Routerone's) immediately prior to Routerone's final revert, so he certainly wasn't showing restraint before the warning. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New and learning the Wikipedia process.
Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia but not new to reading it. Is there a specific help section on the actual specifics of "taking something to the talk page", which I am not sure what this exactly means? Is there a "talk page" for every article? I have looked and didn't see a "talk page" for the very first article I have attempted to edit into a neutral POV. There is another editor who would like to discuss "edits" before they are made by me (which seems kind of pointless to edit if you have to get everyone's permission and agreement before making changes...then why allow just anyone to edit changes in the first place?) but I am of course new the the culture of Wikipedia editing and perhaps I have not understood the intent of the Wikipedia culture yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.66.46 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Links to talk pages are at the top of most pages (the "Discussion" tab/link) - for the article you've edited, the talk page is here: Talk:Book of Mormon anachronisms. There are a couple things that would probably help you as you start to participate in the wikipedia community. First, register - IMO it's easier to communicate and interact with registered users than anonymous IPs that might change even though the user is the same. Second, I disagree with the other editor that edits should be discussed first - actually wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and make initial edits without discussion. However, if you make an edit and someone reverts it, the best thing is to then take it to the talk page (see WP:BRD). Personally I think reverting someone just because no prior discussion was done is a piss-poor modus operandi and contrary to wikipedia culture. If they have legitimate beef based on wikipedia editing standards and policies, then that's another scenario, and the talk page is where the issues and concerns can be dealt with (remember WP:BRD). Third, try making incremental changes to identify the parts of the larger edit that others have concerns about. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch. I have created a login and will now proceed step by step. Sifterway (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Email!
Routerone (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.