User talk:Jeepien

Inertia
hi Jeepien,

You added a comment to Talk:centrifugal force Have a look. I wrote some reactions. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and forget the first of the three comments I wrote: the one titled: 'The siginificance of Newton's Third Law' I had written that before I had read your comment properly. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleon,


 * Thanks for the replies on Talk:Centrifugal force. I think we've gotten onto the same page, conceptually.  Can you now see any beneficial edits we might make to the article, or should I take a whack at it?  --Jeepien 15:41:48, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

You mean writing a new article from scratch?

The current article is written by me. Others have made small edits, particularly to the last section about inertia, so there has been some loss of inner consistency. I think the final section, that attempts to give a feel for inertia, needs to be tightened.

Anyway, inner consistency of an article is most important. If you feel you can maintain inner consistency better by starting from scratch then you should do so. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 17:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is as yet no theory of the origin of inertia
I will copy here what I wrote on Talk:centrifugal force


 * There is an interesting analogy with the phenomenon of inductance. A current circuit with a coil with self-induction in it will not particularly resist current strength; it will conduct a wide range of current strengths. If the current circuit is super-conducting it will conduct current without the necessity to keep applying a voltage. Suppose some voltage is applied, a voltage that tends to increase the current strength. The very first change in current strength leads to a change of the magnetic field of the coil. The change of the magnetic field induces an electric field, and this induced electric field opposes the applied voltage. Inductance opposes change of current strength, but does not prevent change of current strenght, for the mechanism can only come into action when there is some change of current strength. In operation it is a self-tuning mechanism.


 * When there is a coil with self-induction in a current circuit, then change of current strength is by good approximation proportional to the applied voltage. By contrast, without the coil with self-induction, applying a voltage on a superconducting conductor causes an immediate jump in current strenght.

The above discussion is of course quite beyond the scope of the centrifugal force article. I copy it because it shows my conceptual background.

I do view inertia as an interaction. Not an interaction between a pair of objects (like electrostatic force) but an interaction of matter with spacetime. The overall direction of physics thinking is that inertia can be seen as an aspect of interaction of matter/energy with spacetime, with matter in a passive role, and that curvature of spacetime can be seen as an an aspect of interaction of matter/energy with spacetime, with matter in an active role. (Of course, matter/energy is at all times simultaneously a passsive and an active player in the physics taking place)

In the general theory of relativity the description of inertia and of gravitation is unified at the deepest level, that is where my thoughts about inertia come from.

I'm not a teacher of physics myself, but if I would be, I would try hard to combine solid newtonian teaching with preparing the ground as much as possible for a later shift to relativistic thinking.

I hope this explains why I use the rather odd formulation: inertia opposes change of velocity, but does not prevent it. In stating that I am far away from seeing inertia as an intrinsic quality of individual objects. I see the opposition to change of velocity as an interaction of matter with spacetime. The mechanism of this interaction (whatever it may be) is opposing change, but not preventing it. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 18:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is an analogy to be drawn between inductance and inertia. Inductance opposes changes in the flow of current through a conductor in a way that can be compared to installing a flywheel on (or otherwise increasing the moment of inertia of) a rotating shaft, making it oppose changes in angular speed.  In a similar way, electrical capacitance can be compared to the behavior of a pressurized tank, or a spring, where pressure/force/voltage can be used to effect the storage of energy for later release.


 * And just as a flywheel and hairspring can be combined to form a balance wheel, a timekeeping element of early clocks, so an inductor and capacitor can be combined to form a tuned circuit, a timekeeping element in its own right.  While the analogies are less than perfect, with respect to the mechanisms that account for them, it is nevertheless enjoyable to spot them and gratifying when they fit together in similar ways.

I am taking the analogy inductance/inertia quite serious. I am inclined to see motion as a form of flux. I am inclined to think of spacetime as a superconductor to constant flux, but with a mechanism that opposes any change in flux. I don't know what a future theory of inertia will look like. A theory of inertia must incorporate the principle of relativity of inertial motion as described by the formulas of special relativity, and it must have a mechanism for opposing change. Those demands seem hard to reconcile. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 05:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Coriolis
Hi Jeepien,

my main project the past months has been the coriolis effect article. Unfortunately, the current version of that article is contradicting itself, because of editing by contributors that disagree with each other.

All the animations in the current coriolis effect article have been manufactured by me.

I am currently working on a version of the article that is aimed at merging various inputs, but with inner consistency, and of course, consistent with newton's laws of motion. work-in-progress-version of the coriolis effect article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coriolis_effect&oldid=19970204 This version of the coriolis effect article is before the mutually disagreeing editing started. What is noticeble about it is that it never mentions centrifugal force. The expression centrifugal force is avoided everywhere in the version pre-dating the 28th july (most of that version is written by me.)

It would be quite a project for you to study the different versions, and figure out for yourself what you agree with and disagree with. One of the difficulties is babylonian confusion. The meaning of the expression 'coriolis effect' that I had grown up with turned out to be profoundly different from the meaning that my opponents had in mind, so in the work-in-progress version I am recasting everything.

In the case of coriolis there is little standarisation in termininology, making it hard to fathom what somebody means exactly. I have had disappointing experiences, with people jumping to conclusions, not seeing the babylonian confusion.

I hope I have aroused your interest. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The challenge faced by teachers of physics
Hi Jeepien,

In the centrifugal force article you wrote:
 * For this reason, teachers of science in recent years have tended to deëmphasize the [centrifugal] force when teaching about circular motion, and instead emphasize the central role (quite literally) of the centripetal force, since it is the force responsible for maintaining circular motion and centripetal acceleration.

In the august 2004 issue of Scientific American Magazine there was an article by Enrico Lorenzini and Juan Sanmartín about a system that would involve a tether in space

They were talking about orbital dynamics as a tug-of-war, with gravitation tugging the spacecraft towards the Earth, and a centrifugal force, tugging at the spacecraft, away from the Earth.

That caused a flurry of letters to the editor, and in the letter that the editors published the mocking question was asked: "Maybe angels are tugging on the spacecraft to provide this force?" [...]

The cavalier reply by Lorenzini and Sanmartín was: "Centrifugal force is a valid concept in a rotating frame of reference"  I emailed the editors of Scientific American about that, and the reply was that the SA editors support Lorenzini and Sanmartín in their assertion.

The editor that answered my wrote eventually: "I am tempted to cite the principle of equivalence."

I have notice that type of reply on numerous occasions. Misunderstood general relativity is invoked to support misunderstood newtonian dynamics.

Ironically, teachers of science would have an easier job if the theory of relativity would never have been developed. Today, many scientists must be proficient in thinking in terms of the newtonian paradigm, and proficient in thinking in terms of the relativistic paradigm, maintaining self-consistency in each context. What I sometimes see is that people create hybrid theories that are both quasi-newtonian and quasi-relativistic. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Green Party of the United States, page move vote
Regarding the discussion at Talk:Green Party (United States), I have suggested a move. Please see Talk:Green Party of the United States, and consider voting. --65.28.237.180 03:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles
To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Table repair
I have repaired the table you complained about in Talk:International System of Units. --Gerry Ashton 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)