User talk:PhySusie

Welcome!

Hello ,

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Count Iblis 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

There is a problem with the article "Black Holes". When not logged in, there is a sentence that is obviously vandalism at the very beginning of the article. When I log in to correct it, it no longer appears. Nor does it appear when I go to 'edit page'. I'm not the only editor to notice it as well (see talk page under vandalism). How do we fix it? Thanks!PhySusie (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed (indeed before you posted here). See your post at the help desk. Algebraist 01:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:
 * Biographies of living persons
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Neutral point of view
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Attribution
 * Verifiability
 * Assume good faith
 * Civility
 * Words to avoid
 * Requests for oversight
 * Requests_for_page_protection
 * Requests_for_comment
 * Special:Log/block
 * Requests for mediation
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
 * Requests for arbitration
 * Articles for deletion
 * Images and media for deletion
 * Requests for checkuser
 * Usernames for administrator attention
 * Avoid the word "vandal"
 * No legal threats
 * Mediation Cabal

Faraday's law
PhySusie, I'm very disappointed that you have decided to come to the assistance of Steve Byrnes and support his incorrect and unprofessional introduction to this article.

There is one Faraday's law. Griffiths has got no right to decide that the effect of pulling a loop through a time-constant magnetic field is not Faraday's law, because I can assure you that it is very much Faraday's law. It is the vXB aspect of Faraday's law. It is the convective aspect of Faraday's law.

You are quite wrong to support Steve Byrnes on this point.

Steve's introduction is very bad indeed. There is not a single professional encyclopaedia that would start an article on Faraday's law with nonsense along the lines of 'Faraday's law applies ambiguously to two different laws in electromagnetism - - - -'.

The other introduction that you have deleted was a basic and factually correct description of what Faraday's law is.

This brings us to your quote,

"earlier version more correct - no need to change - valid citation".

Let's now analyse this statement of yours. You have taken absolutely no part in the debate which has been ongoing for a week or two. But the moment that you see an edit conflict brewing, you immediately come in to assist Steve Byrnes so as to avoid the need for him to breach the three revert rule.

You say that his version is more accurate. Can you please elaborate to us all as to in what respect it is more accurate? It has removed the expression for Faraday's law and confused the whole issue by suggesting that there are two Faraday's laws.

You say that there was no need to change. Why did you not revert Steve Byrnes' edit on the same grounds?

You then said that their was a valid citation? Did you check it? Does Griffiths denial of the fact that motion induced EMF is connected with Faraday's law amount to a universally accepted understanding of Faraday's law of 1831? I don't think so.

Yet you chose automatically to back up Steve Byrnes. That is not professionalism. If you had held any informed views on the topic, we would have seen you by now in the debate. You are merely playing out a cheap numbers game. George Smyth XI (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that way about my edit. I have been following the arguments (on the various pages) and completely agree with Steve.  I have not contributed because he states the argument very well, in my opinion.  I did not do it to avoid the 3 rv rule for Steve - I did it because I saw it needed to be changed and that it hadn't been changed yet.  I am a professional - I am quite familiar with the topic - and yes I checked the citation.  This is not a personal attack against you - nor is it a blind support of Steve - I don't know either of you.  As a physicist I agree with the argument that Steve has made, which is well documented, and I see no reason to change it. Please calm down and refrain from making personal attacks. PhySusie (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PhySusie, you know fine well that there aren't two Faraday's laws. You know fine well that textbooks don't introduce Faraday's law as two laws. And you know fine well that encyclopaediae don't introduce Faraday's law as two laws.

You claim that you have followed Steve's argument. I'll believe that when you repeat Steve's argument in your own words. I have no evidence that you have followed the argument at all.George Smyth XI (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you spend too much time trying to explain centrifugal force to User:David Tombe, be aware that contribution histories show that User:George Smyth XI is the same person. Rracecarr (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaah! I should have known. That explains a lot. Thanks for the info. PhySusie (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it explain whether the effect of a centrifuge is real or fictitious? David Tombe (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It explains why you don't seem to understand the explanation I gave.PhySusie (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ref desk
derivatives, integrals.....it's been a few years since I took calculus and I guess I'm slipping a little. Thanks for correcting my math (about 2 weeks back). --Shaggorama (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

problem at momentum
There is some vandalism at the top of the momentum page - I tried to edit but it doesn't show up in the edit page. Could you fix it? Thanks! PhySusie (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force
PhySusie, I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply to you about a month ago. You apologized about having believed the groove in the rotating turntable to be curved. That's no problem at at all. Apologies accepted.

I was blocked for one month by SCZenz on very tenuous premises, and he didn't report the fact on the discussion page, and so it looked like I simply wasn't replying to you.

Anyway, you queried the involvement of centrifugal force in the rotating turntable example. Well when the turntable is rotating, a marble in the radial groove will be induced to accelerate outwards along the radial groove. This acceleration is an automatic consequence of the rotation. It is centrifugal acceleration.

It is the principle upon which the centrifuge operates. David Tombe (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment - I saw shortly after I posted that you had been blocked, so I knew you couldn't respond for a while. But thanks for remembering and leaving me the message. PhySusie (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake (dwarf planet)
Do you think you could help with this article's FAC? There's an issue in defining absolute magnitude and since I'm not a physicist I don't really know how to express it properly. Thanks. :-)  Serendi pod ous  23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The momentum form of Newton's second law
PhySusie, after reading the discussion page on Newton's Laws, you seem to be a supporter of the F=d(mv)/dt version of Newton's 2nd Law. Supporters of that equation always claim that it accounts for systems that have changing mass, and that the more well known F=ma only is true for systems of constant mass. I have posted a couple of times on that discussion page asking for an explanation of exactly how it supposedly accounts for changing mass, and showing examples where it seems to yield false results, but nobody has responded. I have consulted this point with one of the more well-known dynamicists in the United States, whom I am privileged to work with, David Levinson (coauthor of a pair of very good dynamics books ). He is the one who actually convinced me of the point I am attempting to make on the discussion page at Newton's Laws of Motion. I was wondering if I could make a personal appeal to you to shed some insight on this for me, please. I would really appreciate you clarifying this point for me. Regards, MarcusMaximus (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found enough examples to be satisfied with my current understanding of the law. Please disregard my request. Thanks! MarcusMaximus (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Under what circumstances is the Moon larger than the Sun?
Hi PhySusie. You really want to say "Because the satellite is in an Earth-trailing orbit and is further from the Moon than the Earth is, ? Is the Moon actually larger than the Sun and this is an optical illusion?  Saintrain (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No - I want it to say that whereas the moon normally appears the same size as the sun, now it appears smaller than the sun. The image is the moon against the sun.  I thought the original caption was fine - the change did not help. But thanks for asking. PhySusie (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then say it. The first mention of the Moon in the article is that "the Moon appears smaller than the Sun."  In no other place is the size comparison made.  Don't revert others' improvements without a good reason.  Saintrain (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Moon
You reverted my additions to the Moon article. You seem to have based your revert on a series of misunderstandings, so I restored my edits. First of all, the addition I made to the article is not the same addition that was being disputed on the talk page. As a result of the dispute, I made several changes to the original addition, and those changes addressed all the objections. You might notice that after I made those changes to address Franamax's objections, Franamax didn't object further, even though he had several days to do so, and even though he's made edits to other articles in the meantime. If you have any other objections to the additions, you should state them on the talk page. But I don't think there's any reason to object to the current version of the additions. The additions don't just relate to a fringe theory, as you alleged when you deleted it. You deleted several undisputed facts. There was only one part of one sentence that addressed something that is a fringe theory. You claimed that I gave undue weight to that fringe theory. But as I stated on the talk page, I didn't give any weight to that theory. In fact, the rest of that sentence explicitly says that the theory is wrong. Obviously no weight isn't too much weight. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation/Hooke's Law
Your request for mediation was referred to me. I've raised some questions for discussion on the Hooke's Law talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)