User talk:Wilhelm meis/Archive 2

Centrifugal Force
Wilhelm, you said that you felt that some people were only interested in pushing a particular point of view. I admitted to you that I was doing exactly that. But I also pointed out that I was not involved in hiding the other points of view. The entire edit war has been because of attempts to hide the Leibniz point of view. If you are not convinced, then you should watch what has just happened on the 'centrifugal force' page. (not the centrifugal force (rotating frames of refernce page)). Have a careful look at my edits and then have a look at what dicklyon did. I'd certainly be interested to hear your input. David Tombe (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you are wrong or that Dicklyon is right, but replacing one POV edit with another is no real improvement, even if there are several improvements contained in the same edit, because it is still just as slanted and just as likely to get reverted. I'm asking everyone to kindly knock it off and try to work together better.  I have seen some improvement on that front in the past day or two, but we need to keep working together to produce a better article and avoid the kind of arguments that lead to further edit warring.  We can go back and forth on it ad infinitum but the poor reader stumbles upon our article and then goes away with even less understanding.  WP is an encyclopedia and its articles should enlighten its readers, not baffle them.  It is very important that the reader be the first thought in our minds as editors.  This admonition applies equally to all the editors of the centrifugal force pages, including Dicklyon.  That said, I still stand by my recognition of his valuable contributions even while I disagree with some of his other edits to the same article.  I'm not taking up anyone's side here but one: the reader. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I've just looked at your edits, and for the first time in two years, I think there is now hope of making progress. What we have now is a general article on centrifugal force which covers all the points of view. As I have already said to you, my own preference is the Leibniz/planetary orbital approach, but I have long conceded that there are other approaches, and that indeed the 'rotating frames' approach which I disapprove of is more prolific in the modern literature.

I will endeavour to try and explain the Leibniz approach in a way which is accessible to the average readership. The normal method of collaborative editing is an ongoing process of re-wording other people's edits, as opposed to wholesale reverts. I will make a start. On the other approaches which I don't agree with, I still nevertheless know what they are and I can see right through the dispute between Leibniz and Newton. As you know, those two were at loggerheads with each other over the priority for the invention of calculus. Apparently Newton once held a view on centrifugal force that was similar to Leibniz's, but as soon as Leibniz produced the planetary orbit equation with the real inverse cube law version of centrifugal force, Newton immediately criticized Leibniz's equation on the grounds that it contradicted Newton's 3rd law of motion. In my opinion, Newton's argument was specious because centrifugal force and centripetal force are not an action-reaction pair and they are not even equal in general. The Newton method has gone out of fashion since the 1960's.

At any rate, I will now continue any discussions about this topic with you on the talk page of 'centrifugal force'. I am grateful that you have now finally brokered a framework for agreement. It's really just a matter now of improving the coherence and the finer details. As long as the Leibniz approach is recognized and on the table, I can't see any further basis for trouble unless the supporters of the 'rotating frames' approach try to subsume it. David Tombe (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Leibniz approach is a historical curiosity; someone showed that without using Newton's mechanics, he was able to come up with something that can be worked into the modern form as the same equation that you get in a co-rotating one-dimenionsal frame, i.e. the same as what Goldstein does in his section "Equivalent One-Dimensional Problem" where he shows that the equation for r that he got by Lagrangian methods is the same as the equation in a "fictitious one-dimensional system" in which r-double-dot is treated as an acceleration. David indicated that Leibniz's method is currently used, which jumps over all this, as if modern people adopted an ancient equation without rederiving it from mechanics; and since he for some reasons keeps introducing the undefined notion of "real" for this force, and denies that the one-dimension frame along r rotates, he's not able to find a sensible way to position this approach with respect to what's in modern mechanics texts.  That's what's going to make the difficulties continue.  But I agree with David on thanking you, Wilhelm, for the help on this sensible approach. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again what I'm seeing here is a wonderful illustration of the importance of sticking close to the verifiable sources. If you can find it in a reliable source, it's fair game, but if it has to be deduced from the source, it should probably be struck as a synthesis argument. Extensive use of inline citations will ultimately be the key that will drive consensus here; that, and the efforts of everyone to thoroughly discuss BEFORE reverting anything. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. That's why I've put so much effort into finding, buying, and citing sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cadwaladr disambiguation
I notice that you removed the dn from Wyvern - when I put it there, there were several Cadwaladrs on WP, and I wasn't sure which one was intended. Now I see that one has become Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd, so I have added him to the disambiguation page for Cadwallader. Also the Wyvern article mentions a golden dragon, while Cadwaladr's standard was the red dragon. Can you clarify?! Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Friar source in front of me, but I assume he didn't provide us any further clues as to which Cadwaladr he intended, though we can piece it together to a reasonable degree of confidence from the clues we have. According to the paraphrased passage in Wyvern, Stephen Friar speculates that the wyvern entered British heraldry as the standard of the Roman cohort and later appeared as the "burning dragon" of Cadwaladr (the origin of the gold dragon or Y Ddraig Aur of Wales). From this we know that the symbol in question was referred to as "the burning dragon of Cadwaladr", and prevailing heraldic knowledge tells us that "burning" things in heraldry (salamander, phoenix, etc.) are most often red.  This may point to an error in Friar's assumptions, but probably not, since medieval heraldic arms–especially regional arms–frequently alluded to earlier arms by incorporating the same design elements but with different tinctures.  Look at the arms of locations in the historical Skåne Province of Sweden, pictured here, for example.


 * It is therefore not a great leap to say that a later golden dragon, associated with a location, could be based upon a red dragon associated with an earlier leader from that location. In fact this very phenomenon repeated itself across Europe throughout the Middle Ages.  Back to the dab page, there are only three Welshmen named Cadwaladr/Cadwallader with WP articles.  One of them was a 20th century poet, so he's right out.  Then we have Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon, the legendary seventh century king who was seen as "the promised deliverer, who would one day return to lead the Brythons to victory against the Saxons" (as likely a candidate as there ever was for the origin of the Welsh heraldic symbol), who was also known to bear a red ("burning"?) dragon standard.  Finally, five centuries hence, we come to Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd who, as a member of the ancient royalty of Britain, passes WP's notability test, but who, among the ancient royalty of Britain, quickly fades into obscurity.  Not to mention that by his time, the other Cadwaladr's standard would have long since become legendary almost in its own right.  Is it a deduction, rather than an outright statement by Friar, that he meant the 7th century Cadwaladr and not the 12th century Cadwaladr?  Yes, but it is undoubtedly correct.  Is it Original Research or Synthesis?  Yes, but I did not insert any of it into the article, I just used it to guide my choice of where to point the link.  And after all, without original research to guide our editorial decisions, this would be a poor encyclopedia indeed!  All that being said, I'm not altogether sure that the Friar reference was the best source, but it's there and I didn't care to uproot it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On a little further contemplation, I'm not at all sure I like the Friar reference. I think it would be less confusing to most readers to say Cadwaladr's dragon was the basis of the red dragon of Wales (Y Ddraig Goch), as this is undoubtedly a more familiar symbol, but I have to assume that the Friar source mentions the gold dragon and not the red one, and we cannot twist sourced material to say something that is not supported by the source text.  I wish I had the Friar text to verify.  Are we even sure that Cadwaladr's "burning dragon" was a wyvern, or is it tangential information that should be removed as 'off-topic'?  I'll see if I can find another source that makes mention of Cadwaladr and his "burning dragon".  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating stuff! That makes a lot of sense, but one does wonder why the Welsh would have both Y Ddraig Goch and Y Ddraig Aur to refer to the same beastie - unless Friar is just showing off his knowledge of Welsh! I will keep an eye on your talk page!   Jpaulm (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The wiki search engine
Wilhelm, if I type 'centrifugal force' into the wikipedia search engine, I will arrive at 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)'. Since 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' and 'reactive centrifugal force' are both branched off from 'centrifugal force', would it not be better that a reader typing in 'centrifugal force' to the search engine is first directed to the general page on 'centrifugal force'? I'd be interested to hear your view on that. David Tombe (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should point to Centrifugal force, and for me it does. I'm not sure why you would arrive at the other page unless there is a redirect in place, which there hasn't been since Dick introduced the summary article last week.  Check it again, and if you're still having problems with it, we'll see if we can figure out why. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I just tried again. It took me to 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)' and it said at the top of the page 're-directed from centrifugal force'. Would it be something to do with the cookies in the computer which I am using at the moment? David Tombe (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably so. Is it your home/work computer, or a public terminal? What browser are you using? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For Firefox, go to 'Tools' and select 'Clear Private Data', then make sure the boxes for 'Cache' and 'Cookies' are checked, and click 'Clear Private Data Now'. For Opera, it's 'Tools' > 'Advanced' > 'Cookies', and then select the cookies you wish to delete (look for "wikipedia" and "en.wikipedia.org") and delete them manually.  For IE, go to 'Tools' > 'Internet Options', then, under the 'General' tab, go to 'Browsing History' and click 'Delete'.  This will pull up a pop-up menu. On the pop-up menu, click 'Delete (Temporary) Files' and click 'Delete Cookies'. Then start using Firefox.  Or just hit the 'Refresh' button at the end of the URL bar.  Seriously, I only use IE on the rare occasions I "have to" because of compatibility issues, and when I opened it just now it totally went berserk for no reason and reminded me why I use Firefox instead.  All I did was have it load the home page (Google) while I checked the cookie/cache-clearing walk-through, and when I closed it, it started opening more and more windows on its own like a thing possessed!  Anyway, good luck with it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, it's working now thank you. On a more general note, I can see an end in sight to this dispute, because the article for the first time, contains a balanced treatment of the topic. I have noted the attempts to consign the Leibniz approach to history, but I think that the overall situation is vastly improved from how it was in February 2007 when I first looked at this page. I'll try now to sort out the facts surrounding the 'reactive centrifugal force'. My own personal opinion is that it is a specious concept which arose because of Newton's stubborn reaction to Leibniz's planetary equation. Leibniz's equation is possibly one of the most ingenious scientific innovations in modern times, but due to the notorious anymosity between Leibniz and Newton, it seems to have been very much played down. I suspect that Newton instantly identified it as the perfected version of something which he himself had been trying to achieve. It is an ingenious application of calculus as applied to Kepler's laws, and of course Newton and Leibniz both claimed priority over calculus. I think that the problem in this case was that Leibniz beat Newton to that equation.

At any rate, I don't think that there are any of the editors here who support the Newtonian approach, but I'd like to see it at least reported accurately. At the moment, it is not being reported accurately. It is being reported on the basis of how some people think that action and reaction should fit into the picture, as per Newton's third law of motion. I'll see if I can sort this out on the talk page. David Tombe (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not opposed to pulling Leibniz out of the 'History' section if it can be demonstrated, in reliable sources, that the Leibniz approach is one that is not only distinct, but has direct bearing on some real application of CF in contemporary times. I gather from what I have seen so far, however, that the contemporary application of the Leibniz approach is rather limited and often merged/confused with other related ideas.  For the time being, I think it is right to discuss Newton, Leibniz, Coriolis, etc. in the 'History' section (though probably with a brief mention in the lead), as these people, instrumental though they were in pioneering the concepts surrounding CF, are not themselves vital to the reader's understanding of the applications of CF.  I wouldn't worry a bit about any or all of these people being relegated to the 'History' section, at least they are in the article and (hopefully in the end) each given their fair share of credit.  I like the way people are now coming out of the edit war pattern and starting to get excited about contributing to making something better.  It's what WP is about. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The re-direct again. It seems to be temporamental. It works sometimes, but mostly it still re-directs to centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference). David Tombe (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I would certainly have to admit that centrifugal force is being promoted by the majority of modern textbooks within the context of it being a fictitious force in a rotating frame of reference. But I think that we also need to be quite clear about the fact that the Leibniz approach is used in Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' to treat the central force orbital problem. Leibniz's equation and equation 3-12 in Goldstein are essentially one and the same equation. Interestingly on page 178 of the 1950 and 1980 editions, Goldstein speaks in terms of the centrifugal force balancing the solar gravity in the Earth's orbit. In the 2002 revision, the new editors go on to introduce a rotationg frame of reference to justify it.

Leibniz's approach is basically that the total radial force is the sum of the centripetal force and the centrifugal force, and that the two are independent of each other. That is the basis upon which orbital theory is treated in modern textbooks. The opposition of the centripetal force (gravity) and the centrifugal force leads to orbits which are elliptical, hyperbolic, or parabolic, depending on the initial energy conditions.

What ought to be a matter of interest to you as an independent arbitrator from outside the field of physics, is why there seems to have been so much resistance to any mention of the Leibniz approach in the article. Do you have any views on the scenario which I put to Brews regarding reactive centrifugal force? David Tombe (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry
Hi Wilhelm. Thanks for the note on my talk page about the new GAN for the Swedish heraldry article. At the moment, I am not doing any GA reviews, due to a new job (lasting just through the summer) that doesn't allow me much time for internet access. I apologize for not being able to do the new review on this article, and I hope that a reviewer picks it up soon. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The re-direct again
Wilhelm, I have been using a few different computers and I am still having that problem with the search engine. Sometimes it works correctly and takes me straight to centrifugal force. But on most occasions, it takes me to the fork article 'centrifugal force (rotating frames of reference)'. I tried to fix it myself but I got as far as this page . Would you know what to do next? David Tombe (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm, I'll do as you suggest at the village pump eventually. I have had the same problem with a few computer terminals. However, I'll wait for a while and check out a few more terminals first. The edit war at centrifugal force is essentially over. The framework for a settlement is now in place. Whether or not the war flares up again will depend on the extent to which any future proliferation of the Leibniz approach meets with strenuous resistance. I have just been in e-mail contact with a few people about the historic dispute between Newton and Leibniz and I have been informed that Godel is on record as having said that there is a conspiracy to suppress Leibniz. Leibniz gets close to Einstein's general relativity but his ideas clash with Einstein's special relativity. I will either put in a brief section on planetary orbits based on Leibniz and Goldstein, or else I will put in a section on changing attitudes towards centrifugal force. If the latter is resisted, that in itself will prove the very point in question. I think that the entire edit war began because the page was being watched by a group who had learned about centrifugal force in the way that it is most commonly taught, and they didn't want to face up to the fact that there was anything deficient in their education. I think we were witnessing a bit of the old Orwellian 'other approaches to this topic don't exist and never existed'. Frames of reference are an essential aspect of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the absolute motion that is demonstrated by rotation, as in the Bucket argument threatens that theory. Hence you can see with your own eyes, the attempts that have been made to deny the Newtonian conclusion on the Bucket argument. David Tombe (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, David. Your Orwell reference made me smile.  It's not often that I hear a reference to Orwell that is so dead-on.  I'm not so sure I would toss around any direct accusations of wrong-doing, however, pursuant to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  Remember also that there is never any good reason to renew an edit war, no matter how wrong the other side may be.  Just appeal to the better nature of the article's editing community on the article's talk page, and seek admin intervention only if necessary.  Be sure to pick your battles and never cry wolf.  Then, when you do request intervention, you have credibility on your side (with some help from solid reliable sources).  Again, I think the CF article is on the right track, but what will ultimately drive consensus is if everyone plays by the rules.  I am leaving further comments on the specific points at Talk:Centrifugal force, as these comments are for everyone.  Have a good day!  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, since you have taken such an interest in centrifugal force and appear to be able to comprehend the topic, I will give you a short summary on exactly what was behind the edit war. You can now see how I was trying to promote centrifugal force as being the very real outward expansion which arises as a result of mutual transverse motion.

The opposition on the other hand were insisting that the topic needs to be considered in relation to rotating frames of reference. For the special case when objects are co-rotating with the rotating frame, while I could see no technical problem as such, I considered these rotating frames to be a totally unnecessary encumbrance.

But the real problem came about when the opposition extrapolated the rotating frame concept to its absurd conclusion. They would consider the situation in which an object, that is not actually rotating, is viewed from a rotating frame of reference. From the rotating frame, such an object will be seen to trace out a circular motion. It will not however be moving radially outwards. In my opinion therefore, no centrifugal force exists in that situation. However, by a manipulation of mathematics, the opposition were arguing that a centrifugal force did exist, but that it was being over-ruled by a more dominant inward Coriolis force that had somehow swung around into the radial direction. Alot of the most bitter arguments this time last year were over my attempts to expose the flaw in this mathematical argument.

Unfortunately however, some sources do exist which promote this idea. It then became a question of trying to balance the article with other sources which dealt with planetary orbital theory using the Leibniz approach. But superior numbers amongst a dug-in opposition refused to countenance the Leibniz approach.

From an idealogical perspective, the conflict was between an 'absolute rotation and real outward radial expansion' approach supported by myself, against an 'all things are relative/it depends on how you look at it' approach adopted by the opposition. They were effectively undermining the reality of centrifugal force by arguing that it was merely a product of mathematical transformation of coordinates. David Tombe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not ideological wierdos at work here; it's how it works in standard modern physics, with the standard definitions of centrifugal force and Coriolis force as fictitious forces that arise in rotating reference frames. The real problem seems to be David's inability to admit either that it works or  that it's the standard dominant approach, and he wants to attribute it to the shortcomings of wikipedia editors instead.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, time out, you guys can argue on your own talk pages. I think what has enabled me to become somewhat of a mediator in this thing is the fact that while I have a good basic understanding of physics, I am not particularly opinionated on CF.  I can understand each position without taking up sides.  Aside from that, I maintain a certain objectivity and emotional detachment.  For example, in heraldry (something I know much more about than physics) I maintain enough objectivity to report on Fox-Davies' disdain for the "absurdity" of classifying certain charges as "Honourable Ordinaries", while recognizing the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of this classification, and all the while refrain from taking up the banner of the argument myself.  I tend to avoid the term "Ordinaries" when possible and use it only in the narrowest sense, because I happen to agree with Fox-Davies that it is a lamentable term most likely invented by heraldic writers and not by heralds, but nonetheless, the term appears in nearly every heraldry article I have written, largely because Fox-Davies holds a minority opinion among the reliable sources (most sources don't even address the issue of the term's origin, only briefly mentioning its haphazard application).  In this sense, I can sympathize with David and his struggle to make sure that the minority opinion is represented in the article.  At the risk of repeating myself, however, I feel that both David and the "opposition" are a little too emotionally involved in the material.  If everyone would take a step back, breathe deeply, and approach it as something they find interesting but are not passionate about, it would help everyone to gain the proper detachment necessary to report and inform rather than instruct and defend.  This dispassionate objectivity is a fundamental key to editing any article with a Neutral Point of View and encyclopedic tone, and to avoiding edit wars of all stripes.  I hope it is what each editor takes away from their experience with the CF articles. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A Bureaucratic Strategy
Wilhelm, if you are still watching the debate at centrifugal force, I would like to draw your attention to what is happening now. There are three approaches to this topic. But for some reason, the Leibniz approach is an unpalatable truth for the editors that I am in opposition against. I have tried to be reasonable in that I am neither suppressing their preferred viewpoint (rotating frames/fictious approach) nor their acceptable face of opposition (The Newton method). In fact I have gone out of my way to concede that their way is the way that is most commonly promoted in modern textbooks, and I wrote that into the main article. Their way now takes first place.

But as you can see from the discussion page, they have removed a table because it dared to speak of the third way. Dick pointed out an error which I made in the table. I was aware of that error after I made it, but it could easily have been rectified without doing a wholesale removal of the table. The word 'any frame' only needed to be replaced by 'inertial frame'.

This is what I feared was going to happen. The framework would be established to end the edit war, but that these guys would then slowly but surely move in to erase all references to a third way. As you can see, they have been accusing me of giving too much prominence to the Leibniz approach. By 'too much prominence' I assume that they are referring to the fact that it has been mentioned at all.

This is a classical bureacratic tactic which involves the use of boxes. If a third way is unpalatable, then set up a system of boxes that don't recognize its existence. Make the boxes only acknowlegde two approaches. Stick to the party line approach and one acceptable face of opposition which has been judged to be benign, possibly because its faults are blatantly obvious. David Tombe (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * David, I am backing off a little bit, not just from this article, but from WP altogether, as I am getting a little busier now, but I will be sure to check in from time to time. Reviewing the article's history and talk page, I see that the article is still slowly moving toward consensus.  I can also see that this annoys you because you disagree with some points of that consensus, and because you had a recent edit reverted two or three times by different editors.  You might not want to hear this, but when the same edit is reverted by different editors, it is usually a good indication that there is solid consensus against it.  I also happen to agree with the reversion in this case because the purpose of the sections in a summary style article is first and foremost to summarize the basic idea of the branch article, not to explain the history of the idea.  I'm afraid the best you can do for now is to work within the existing consensus and influence it rather than fighting against it.  The article is improving overall, and other than a few reverts, I think people are in much more of a cooperative mood.  I'm not so sure they are plotting against anyone.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm, OK. But the problem with the reactive centrifugal force concept is that it is not logical in the first place because it is supposedly based on Newton's 3rd law, yet it only operates on one body. These editors here have tried to rectify the situation by making it act over two bodies. They have hence compounded the error. The source which I provided clearly laid out, rightly or wrongly, what Newton's reactive centrifugal force is. And the other source provided a motivation for Newton's error. I was only on the side of the reader here because I don't agree with that concept anyway.


 * The main issue here is the attempts to deny equation 3-12 in Goldstein in the main body of the article, as a third way. David Tombe (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow. I see where the bit about Newton's reactive centrifugal force on two bodies and about the Nelkon & Parker book got reverted, but I don't see anything about Goldstein in the recent edit history (though I do see the Goldstein reference in para. 1 of 'History of conceptions of centrifugal and centripetal forces').  To make sure I understand Newton's idea correctly, let me restate it this way: According to Newton, since the gravitational force of the Earth on the Moon acts as a centripetal force pulling the Moon into a curved path of motion (without Earth's gravity the Moon would travel in a straight line tangential to Earth's own path), there must be an equal and opposite centrifugal force acting on the Earth (so the centrifugal force acting on the Earth is equal to the Moon's gravitational 'pull' on the Earth).  There is no centrifugal force acting on the Moon, only the centripetal force of Earth's gravitational pull, and the Moon's inertia resisting that pull.  So while there are two bodies interacting, only one of these (the Earth) is experiencing a centrifugal force (according to Newton).  Yes?  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, If you look at that 'google books' weblink that was in the reverted text, you'll see that the author points out that Newton changed his position on centrifugal force after seeing Leibniz's equation, in order to denigrate Leibniz's work. There was intense animosity between them. Therefore, it is not altogether clear what exactly Newton had in mind. Nelkon & Parker, 1961, simply states that the centripetal force that acts on a body in circular motion, is balanced by an equal and opposite centrifugal force, as per Newton's law of action and reaction.

Newton's approach has been phased out of the literature in the last 40 years. I personally believe that it was wrong anyway. But the reactive centrifugal force is nevertheless a concept which has appeared in the literature in recent times, and all I was trying to do was give an outline of it. The edit that has replaced my edit speaks with assurance as if the concept is fully logical and that there is no controversy about it, and never has been. If you actually read the existing version, you will soon realize that it doesn't make any sense, and principally because the authors have taken it upon themselves to try and remedy the flaws in a flawed concept. They have invoked the fact that Newton's third law acts over two bodies and then proceeded to apply the reactive centrifugal force over two bodies. In doing so, it has come out as an incoherent jumble, and no reader is likely to understand it.

Since Newton's method has been dropped from the textbooks, the standard approach in modern physics courses has been to drop centrifugal force altogether. The argument now runs that when a body is undergoing circular motion, all that is needed is an inward centripetal force to keep the object's direction continually changing.

This modern approach however contradicts the planetary orbital equation which is taught on more advanced applied maths courses. That equation is at 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' and it is the same as Leibniz's equation. The principle behind it is that the central force relative to any point in space is the sum of the inward centripetal force and the outward centrifugal force. Hence in the special case of a circular motion, the two will be equal and opposite. This is the Leibniz approach. But it differs from the Newtonian approach in that it allows for the centrifugal force and the centripetal force to have different magnitudes, which is why we can have elliptical, hyperbolic, and parabolic orbits as well as circular orbits. But as you can see, I am meeting with strenuous resistance as regards getting the Leibniz approach listed in the main body of the text as a legitimate and sourced third way.

That's enough for now, but next time, I can explain to you how the Leibniz approach differs from the 'rotating frames of reference' approach.

Also, I forgot to clarify that my attempts to describe the Newton approach are a separate issue to my attempts to insert the Leibniz approach into the article. I support the Leibniz approach as being the one and only universally correct approach. But I want to see the facts surrounding the Newton approach written up properly. At the moment we are witnessing attempts to paper over cracks. Some people cannot accept the existence of controversy and so they try to paper over it. David Tombe (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think my main point regarding the recent edits is that each of the summary sections in the article should summarize, in as plain language as possible, the basic idea of one concept or approach without getting bogged down in jargon, symbol soup, historical explanations of "the history of..." [the concept], or a lot of treatment of the support or refutation of the idea's validity. Each summary section should lead with a paragraph that summarizes what the idea is.  This can be followed by a second paragraph that may deal with some further information, such as a slightly deeper explanation or some information on the critical/academic reception of the idea, concrete examples (properly sourced), etc., but I think we would do well to keep the "history of..." information in the "history of..." section, in order to keep the summary sections light and quick.  They really need to stick to the basic information necessary to understand the concept without getting into the full details; that's what the branch articles are for.  Again, by all means, let's mention Leibniz and Newton and relate their ideas with some basic comparison and contrast, and the Goldstein equation is right in, but everything needs to be in its place, because a reader coming to this article wants the quick & dirty version first, and then further details as far as s/he chooses to continue reading.  I don't think the other editors will have a problem with including this information if you and they can come to an agreement on where to place it and how to present it.  Keep working on it, you can have more influence as part of the team than as "the outsider", so check what role you are playing.  I don't mean that as harsh as it may sound, but really, I think the lot of lone wolves here are forming up into a pack, so don't let yourself get left out if you want to have anything at dinner time. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm, At one point I had that history of reactive centrifugal force in the history section, but RRacecarr removed it claiming it to be unsourced, even though the sources were openly mentioned in the text itself.


 * On the other point about the Leibniz approach, I'll make a proposal on the talk page. But I don't expect to get any agreement. As you rightly sense, the wolves are forming into a pack. This has been the problem all along. I had always hoped that Brews might have been able to break the chain reaction, since it is evident from his questions that he is still thinking about the problem. But it's quite amazing how Brews can get into an argument with dicklyon and FyzixFighter one moment, but then go with the pack to revert my edits, and then come back again later asking a few pertinent questions. I have attempted on a number of occasions to get administrator intervention. After all, I am only trying to make a topic, which I have done alot of research into, easier for the public to read. My own analysis is that I have encountered that barrier which arises when people have a partial knowledge of a topic and don't want to be told anymore. My experience with the administrators has always been that they are kindred spirits with the pack.


 * When the administrators choose to turn a blind eye, that merely gives the pack the green light, and so there is not really much point in pushing the matter any further. I'll try for a little while longer and then move on to other physics topics.David Tombe (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So I think you understand my point about the necessity of finding your place within the pack, lest you continue to experience the futility of working as an outsider (or the potentially equal futility of seeking admin intervention just to have the admin point to a consensus against you). You just need to keep working on those points of agreement - the common ground you do share with other editors - and promote the idea that it's not 'David vs. Everybody', but that you are an integral part of the team working toward a common goal.  There's nothing wrong with going slow and using the talk page to build solid consensus before you do anything to the article itself - it just helps make sure that your edits will endure and not just get reverted as soon as you turn your back.  I on the other hand often find myself working alone on articles without even anyone to argue with.  That can carry its own frustrations (such as trying to figure out if no opposition is the same thing as consensus when you're the only one in the room).  Anyway, just be glad that there is a team to become part of and find your way in. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, thanks for the advice. But watching the edits over the last few days has made me realize that this problem is unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved. These guys don't actually want to see the truth. FyzixFighter is just playing silly games with references. I strongly suspect that he knows the truth now, but he has taken a stance, and he clearly doesn't want the readers to know what he didn't know before all this started.

There is no question of me joining the pack. That's not how I operate. I saw one guy last July do that. He arrived on the article and made a few points. It wasn't easy to figure out exactly what his points were, but I could see some legitimacy in them. A big edit war began. I was blocked at the time and couldn't join in. When my block expired, I then asked this guy to elaborate on his points. At first he didn't reply to me. Rracecarr then flattered him by warning me that the other guy was an acceptable face of opposition to them because he did actually understand the concepts, whereas I didn't. That other guy then emerged and took a swipe at me in order to ingratiate himself to the pack. It was a pathetic sight to view. He then became totally compromised and ineffectual and disappeared. I'm not interested in joining this pack. I simply wanted centrifugal force explained as the outward expansion that arises in connection with absolute rotation. But that truth obviously strikes a few raw nerves. I hoped that there might have been at least a few administrators who could have seen what was going on. But sadly not. There are far too many people who get involved in editing on wikipedia only to fall into little cliques and loose sight of their original purpose. One of the most pathetic things to witness is when one of your opponents changes his position in order to form an alliance with another of your opponents. I have seen alot of that recently.

There are topics on wikipedia which are obvious battlegrounds for edit wars. I make a point of avoiding them. But sometimes you can tread on a raw nerve where you least expect it. I've been trying to tidy up some articles on the British Empire. Most of those edits go smoothly. I am always very mindful of where the sensitivities might lie. Obviously one has to tread very carefully on matters to do with India, Ireland, or South Africa. But my first big conflict there came where I least expected it. That was New Zealand. One of the most loyal parts of the Empire until recently. What then happens is, you stumble across a young generation who are trying to re-write their own history because they don't share the loyalty of their forefathers. Try to put the facts correct and you're immediately up against a gang. You then simply have to walk away after making your point to them on the talk page.

And just for your own interest, my most bitter edit war of all was actually on the Mozart page. I stumbled across it and decided to rectify the state of affairs surrounding his nationality. That stood on a whole gang of toes instantly. If you think that you have seen intolerance on the centrifugal force issue, it is a picnic compared to what I saw on Mozart. I was neither siding with the Germans nor the Austrians. I was merely trying to put in a formula of wording that acknowledged both arguments. But I was instantly up against a group of Austrian nationalists who stormed in and totally blocked the slightest suggestion that Mozart was German in any respect. I knew that this wasn't true and I dug in. I got blocked for going against a consensus. They then instantly had a vote to archive the entire discussion page in case anybody should read that there was even any doubt about their view of the matter. That was a classic case of Orwellian deletion. The edit war itself was deleted from immediate view.

I think that wikipedia's biggest weakness is that it doesn't have a mechanism to deal with these situations. There should be certain guidelines in place which are enforced over the head of a consensus when it is obvious that the consensus is based on some kind of childish ganging up, or on some kind of extreme political viewpoint. But since no such mechanism is in place, there comes a time when you just have to accept that certain articles are going to remain in a bad state.

With centrifugal force, I think that the best thing now would be to wait until some new editors arrive on the scenes. Meanwhile, I'll have a last attempt on the talk page to see how we might put the planetary orbital equation into the article. But I suspect dicklyon and FyzixFighter will simply gang up, play silly games with references, and prevent any rational discussion on the equation.

You are probably wondering, as I'm sure many other silent onlookers are, as to why centrifugal force should be such a controversial topic. The answer is that it lies at the centre of Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices which Maxwell used to derive the famous Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism which are still used today. The problem is that Maxwell's method of derivation, using that sea of molecular vortices, has been totally swept under the carpet. There is a new revisionist approach to Maxwell's equations, and in general, modern physics is all about 'all things are relative'/'it depends on how you look at it'. Just watch Brews. Watch him right now on the talk page of centrifugal force. He's struggling with the bucket argument because he sees something there that doesn't fit with modern teaching. David Tombe (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did have to wonder for a while why CF should be such a bitterly contested issue. In truth, I had to laugh out loud a few times.  You would have thought it was a college class in Mississippi debating evolution!  I think there is something to your argument that nowadays 'everything is relative' and no one dares question the validity of Einstein's theories anymore.  He's the smartest person who ever lived (so sorry Mozart) and the very idea that his theories were extremely controversial at the time is now long forgotten.  We've enshrined him in the halls of human memory as the greatest genius that ever lived, and I think sometimes people forget that he was just a man, just as imperfect and just as foolish in his own ways as any of us.  I do agree that there are some fundamental flaws in Wikipedia's system, such as the lack of a truly systematic response to blatant vandalism, the impracticality of warning or even blocking shared IP addresses such as school library terminals, and (as you pointed out) the lack of bureaucratic oversight.  Even articles that have achieved FA status are subjected to frequent unbridled vandalism (see William Faulkner for example).  Wikipedia is designed to always be ruled by what Thomas Jefferson called the "tyranny of the majority", so when you find yourself in the minority, you get a short list of options: 1) Keep fighting until you get blocked, 2) Gather evidence to prove beyond doubt the fallacy of the majority opinion, 3) Join the group and try to influence their approach with some gentle nudges and one-on-one comments, or 4) Give up and find a paying job.  I've been working on #4 myself.  For all its flaws, though, there really is something exciting about being a part of the single most ambitious project in language since the OED.  Despite the many valid criticisms, I'd put WP on a short list of great works in the advancement of human knowledge, together with the OED, the Gutenberg Bible and the Rosetta Stone.  There's something to be said for stepping up and taking one's part in what is likely the greatest and most enduring project of one's own lifetime.  That's what keeps me coming back.  That, and I think I have learned more from my experiences here than I have taught. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, It does of course often expose the very worst aspects of democracy, and it's a reminder to us all what it would be like under mob rule in real life. Yes, if you have been ganged up against, you will not be able to change the article. But you shouldn't loose sight of what your original purpose was if there still apears to be at least some involved in the discussion who are genuinely trying to learn. In this particular edit war it has become clear that certain editors have actively ganged up for their own selfish reasons to the detriment of the reader, and that discussing the matter with them on the talk page is only a waste of time. I still do think that Brews is genuine, but rather a slow learner. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he is part of the gang too. But time will tell. I have noted that they turn on him too when I am not around.

What wikipedia can't handle is the situation that arises when someone engages in a very subtle kind of vandalism whereby they are hiding behind the rules and claiming only to be interested in ensuring that edits are properly sourced and don't contain any original research. Somebody like that who is slithering around behind you and wrecking all your good work is clearly trying to hide some truth with which they feel very uncomfortable about. They can get away with it because the topic might be too complex for most of the administrators to see what exactly is going on. But this kind of wrecker, often faceless, knows exactly what their own true motives are. They have a vested interest in wrecking the edits of somebody else for the very purpose of suppressing a certain truth.

And that's what has been going on at centrifugal force. The idea that centrifugal force is an outward expansion pressure due to rotation is anathema to relativists. I can walk away from this anytime, but it seems a terrible pity that an opportunity has been lost to explain in very simple terms to passing readers, what exactly centrifugal force is. When I first edited on it in early 2007, I couldn't believe how quickly the reverts occurred. I simply inserted the proceeds of equation 3-12 of Goldstein and a whole crowd descended down on the article instantly in bus loads. They were absolutely determined at all costs to ensure that centrifugal force was seen as some mathematical illusion which arose when playing about with rotating frames of reference. They had introduced a hall of mirrors to the topic and it was very important to them to deliberately confuse the subject.

In the end, I'd much rather lose the war than join the gang. I saw what happened to that guy last July. You join the gang, and the article won't change one iota from the way they wanted it. They might give you a comma or even a semi-colon if you are lucky, for good behaviour. But that's no way to run an encyclopaedia for the public. If you have been in an edit war you will have seen how sickly it looks watching your opponents forming alliances. You don't want to engage in that cheap game. If you believe in what you are saying, then keep going until it becomes clear that there is not one single person left on the talk page who is engaging in genuine rational debate. Then you go away.

By the way, you said that you laughed a few times about the idea of an edit war at centrifugal force. I can see the funny side too, and I have played on it. They ask me what I was doing at the internet place where people are generally believed to go to chat. I say that I go to argue. They ask 'argue about what?'. I will say 'there's a huge argument going on on the internet about centrifugal force'. They will give me a look and repeat 'centrifugal force?' 'What's that?'. I'll explain that it's the force that throws you out the side of a car door when it's turning round a corner. They will then look puzzled and ask 'but what's there to argue about in it?'. I will just reply 'there is no end of argument about that matter'. It usually causes a bit of a laugh, with them no doubt thinking that there must be bigger problems in the world to worry about.

Anyway, you can have my own theory on centrifugal force. This is original research, and so I can't quote from it on the main article. It is my attempt to explain the underlying cause of centrifugal force. David Tombe (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I can tell you this. It has been my experience around here that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NN are nearly always considered the core policies of WP (and usually in that order).  According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (first sentence!)  Use it to your advantage.  Of course you can't insert OR, and self-quoting would be WP:OR and WP:COI, but if you have neutral, reliable sources, and you can demonstrate neutrality and reliability, then I would say you have a case to take to an admin to override consensus.  The thing is, you have to demonstrate through edit histories that Verifiability and Neutrality are being ignored to further a self-interested consensus.  I have seen an overriding tendency to try to instruct rather than inform the reader in many of the edits made to the CF articles, and the branch articles, last time I read them, still read more like a textbook than a tertiary source.  That's the major flaw I see, and the main driving force (recently) behind the edit war.  The articles need to report on what is in the reliable sources, rather than trying so hard to make sense of it all.  Sources disagree.  So what?  We don't need to reconcile them in the article.  There are plenty of articles that express fundamental disagreement among sources without the coherence of the article suffering too badly.  Article coherence has more to do with style edits than cherry picking content.  If you can show all this to an admin, and show that you have tried the preferred approach, I say go for it.  Just remember getting information admitted to the article doesn't mean you get it presented where and how you want it either.  There still needs to be some agreement, regardless of what an admin does.  An admin won't just step in and institute martial law, they will just remind everyone of the rules and try to adjust people's priorities as needed to improve compliance with WP policy.  There's still going to have to be a lot of discussion on the talk page to achieve some sort of consensus. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I'll see what I can do. But at the end of the day, I need to be sure that these guys are genuinely trying to comprehend the topic. So far I only see evidence of that on the part of Brews. If the others are dug in, then the situation is not going to improve very much more without administrator intervention.

I do have reliable sources but unfortunately dicklyon and FyzixFighter are playing a very clever game between them of distorting the contents of those sources and claiming that I am the one that is doing the distorting. It needs an impartial administrator to monitor the arguments line by line. Basically Goldstein calls the inverse cube law term in 3-12 'centrifugal force'. And of course he is right in that respect. It can't be anything else, and equation 3-12 is obviously Leibniz's equation. But Dick and FyzixFighter have opportunistically taken advantage of the fact that Goldstein doesn't mention the word 'centrifugal force' until after he has stated that equation 3-12 is the same equation as that which arises in the equivalent fictitious 1-D problem. Anybody who is genuinely interested in the subject will realize that this statement in no way undermines the reality that the inverse cube law term in 3-12 is the 'centrifugal force'. Goldstein draws attention to the fact that when the inverse cube law term is written in the alternative form rω^2, its significance then becomes clear, as it is the 'familiar centrifugal force'. Dick and FyzixFighter have been trying to imply that Goldsetin is saying that it is only the centrifugal force in the fictitious 1-D problem. But anybody being honest about the matter will know that Goldstein is referring to equation 3-12 because you cannot have a centrifugal force in a 1-D problem. There is no rotation in a 1-D problem.

This is an example of where Dick and FyzixFighter are using confusion in the literature to undermine attempts to explain the topic in a simple and concise fashion. The arguments on the talk page need to be carefully monitored by a neutral administrator who is capable in physics, even if not a physicist. My experience so far has been that no such neutral administrator exists. David Tombe (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Basically Goldstein calls the inverse cube law term in 3-12 'centrifugal force'."


 * David, can you provide a quote and page number to back that up? I don't believe it's true. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dick, go to the centrifugal force talk page and I'll answer that. David Tombe (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks & question
no, my fault, I failed the redirect inescutcheon - thanks for correcting me

but. maybe you could help me: whats the correct bazoning for a crown resting on the shield (eg., above ) - Crown in chief? - in Escutcheon (heraldry), main image, it is named Coronet - but thats the type, not the point (in fact, any crown or hat may rest above) - in the articles #Points it is named in chief, but eg, here (heraldica.org), Crown in chief is inside the shield  no misunderstood that: is it Crown in charge? --W!B: (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite understandable about the redirect. Your question is an easy one to answer, but it may warrant some further explanation.  The correct blazon is [description of the arms on the shield or inescutcheon] surmounted by a [royal crown/coronet of rank].


 * This form may be found in the arms of royalty, peers, duchies, cities (usually surmounted by a mural crown), etc., but one also encounters this form carried onto the main shield in the form of a coronet of rank displayed over an inescutcheon. According to the English system, the coronet of rank is always retained over the arms of a peer(ess); while a wife's arms may be impaled with her husband's arms if neither of them are peers, she cannot confer any rank upon him and so his arms cannot bear her coronet of rank; in order to marshal these arms, the (commoner) husband bears the (peeress) wife's arms inescutcheon over his own (this is called an escutcheon of pretense), the inescutcheon being surmounted by her coronet of rank.  Thus, the coronet of rank clearly refers to the arms of the wife and not those of the husband.  As I said, this is only the English system, so it can vary in other contexts.  In the case of Queen Silvia's arms, this display is actually quite similar to the way her arms would be displayed in England, only substituting the oval shield of German/Swedish ladies for the lozenge shield of English ladies.  Then again, in all likelihood her arms would normally be displayed side-by-side with her husband's (usually both standing on the same compartment, but each with its own supporters, mantling, crown, etc.).  It is also important not to confuse the escutcheon of pretense (showing the arms of an armigerous wife, which is the usual case of inescutcheons in English heraldry) with an escutcheon en surtout (showing the bearer's arms of inheritance over a quartered shield showing the territorial arms of his dominions, which is the usual case of inescutcheons in continental heraldry).  For further reading, I would refer you to "The Marshalling of Arms" chapter of A Complete Guide to Heraldry by A. C. Fox-Davies (pp. 523-560).


 * Back to the short answer, a crown appearing above the shield is always said to be (shield) surmounted by (crown). A crown in chief would be in the uppermost portion within the shield.  Any time a crown appears within the shield, it is said to be a charge, so it does not carry the same meaning as a crown surmounting the shield.  A crown used as a charge suggests an old royal lineage, but a crown surmounting the shield denotes that the bearer is royalty (and a coronet surmounting the shield denotes that the bearer is a peer). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry, I found Crowns in crest - if not to differ resting and flying crowns.. --W!B: (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the "flying" crowns (I assume you mean those that appear to hang in midair above the shield), these are essentially the same - arms "surmounted by" a crown of appropriate type. It's just one of those curious little insanities of English style that crowns may appear like flying saucers over the arms, and English heralds have even been known to display crests hovering in this way without even a helmet to support them!  Of course German heralds would find such a display as absurd as erecting a roof where there is no house.  But then, I also have to laugh at the German displays of forward-facing crests over turned helmets, as if the helmet's wearer bore the crest turned sideways! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks a very lot for Your answer: its quite hard to read to me (i'm from Austria ..), but helpful, I'd never found that mayself.. - getting encouraged ba Your detailed answer ;) - so, maybe if you'd like to help me further, lets translate the following to english blazon:

Franz II. (HRR)/I. (Austria), 1804, Kleines Wappen (whats this in english? "smaller" or "lesser" arms?): blazon gives (just about the crowns, and badly translated, the original text You'll find in Otto Posse: Die Siegel der Deutschen Kaiser und Könige, vol. 5 p.251 ("greater" arms), p. 254 ("middle" arms), wikisource ff) thus, we have no crown in crest at all, the first is a coronet surmounting, the second just part of charge, and the last is not in crest, but the eagles attribute a lot more "resting"/surmounted coronets we'll find at Joseph II. "middle" W!B: (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * in Or (im goldenen Felde) an doubleheaded, doublecrowned eagle Sable (einen zweykoepfigen und doppelt gekroenten schwarzen Adler) — crowned eagle
 * on the "main shield" (Hauptschild) "rests" (ruhet) the Crown of the House of Austria (Oesterreichische Hauskrone, de:Rudolfskrone'' — [shield] surmounted by [crown]
 * above the Roman Eagles (des roemischen Adlers) both heads (ueber den beyden Koepfen) "hovering " (schwebet) the Imperial Crown of the Roman Emperors (die römisch-kaiserliche Reichskrone)  — [eagle] surmounted by [crown], or crowned eagle?
 * “main shield” is supported be two crowns: Stephanskrone (Austria) and Wenzelskrone (Bohemia) — as we are used since renaissance, individual crowes as coronet - despite en:coronet tells us it must not have arches, they have..
 * the Rudolfskrone we see here surmounting the Great German Shield with the roman eagle - that is why it is "flying" in example above, if the eagle sits on the main shield, as the German Shield is omitted in case of Francis I small (besides, is it correct to call it "supporter" in that case?)


 * Es würde mir freuen, zu dich mit das weiterhelfen, aber du musst mich mit mein Deutsch weiterhelfen auch!
 * Du bringst einige Fragen auf. Ich werde alle antworten, auf Englisch mit etwas Erklärung auf Deutsch.  Für mehr Hilfe mit die Sprache siehe LEO und AHD (diese dürfte dir bekannt sein trotzdem).


 * 1) Lesser arms.  Man sagt "lesser arms" auf Englisch.
 * 2) Or (just Or).  English blazon is a highly stylized form with a very formal grammatical structure, so every single word has a very specific meaning, and the grammatical elements like word order are very rigid.  In other words, if I add a word or switch the order of two words, it can indicate quite different arms.  The reason for this is that blazons originated as marginalia in the Wappenrolle, so it is a kind of shorthand or abbreviated writing.  When indicating the color of the field, we just say the color (üblicherweise sagen wir nur "Gelb, ein Adler...", nicht "Im gelben Felde ein Adler...").  If a shield is quartered, we say the color of the 1st and 3rd quarters and then the color of the 2nd and 4th quarters (e.g. "Quarterly Or and gules..." is gold in the upper left and lower right [as seen on the page], while "Quarterly gules and Or..." is red in the upper left and lower right).  So word order is very important, especially regarding the colors.
 * 3) einen zweykoepfigen und doppelt gekroenten schwarzen Adler.  In plain English, we would call it a crowned two-headed black eagle, but in English blazon it is a two-headed eagle sable, [each head] crowned Or (each head may be omitted).  Since the field is also gold, we might say "Or, a two-headed eagle sable crowned of the first."  If there are many repetitions of the same 2-3 colors, we say things like "of the third" to mean the third color stated.
 * 4) After describing the arms presented on the main shield, we would say "surmounted by the House Crown of Austria." Then we describe the supporter and the rest.
 * 5) The Imperial crown over the supporter is not surmounting anything.  If there were no supporting eagle and it was just a shield with a crown above it, I would say the shield was "surmounted by" the crown.  But here the crown is not over the shield, it is over the eagle.  Since it is not directly on either head of the double eagle, we could not rightly say the eagle is "crowned with" the Imperial crown either.  I do not see a direct guide in my sources, but we would probably say (inaccurately) that the Imperial double eagle is "crowned with" the Imperial crown.  Thank you for showing me this.  I don't think I have ever seen an Imperial crown to be hovering above the heads of the Imperial double eagle, while even this one looks to me like it is really "resting" on the two heads.
 * 6) Regarding information found in en:Coronet and other heraldic articles on en.WP, please let me know if you find information that is inaccurate because it does not give a broad enough perspective.  The heraldry articles are especially bad about dealing only with English heraldry, partly because nearly all English-language books on heraldry deal with British heraldry as if there never was heraldry anywhere else in the world.  I have been trying to correct this as much as possible.  See Swedish heraldry and German heraldry for example, and I have introduced some non-British perspective in star (heraldry) and helmet (heraldry).
 * 7) The Imperial eagle is indeed considered a "supporter" when it is used as one, and to my knowledge it is the only single supporter that exists in heraldry (other supporters come in pairs).
 * 8) Starting from the beginning, this is how I would blazon this coat of arms in English blazon:
 * Or, inescutcheon gules a fess argent supported by a two-headed eagle sable, armed and crowned with royal crowns Or and maintaining in a sword and a royal orb [argent?], overall surmounted by the House crown of Austria and supported by an Imperial double eagle crowned with the Imperial crown of the Holy Roman Empire.
 * I might shorten the description further by simply saying "Or, inescutcheon gules a fess argent supported by an Imperial double eagle, overall surmounted by the House crown of Austria and supported by an Imperial double eagle crowned with the Imperial crown of the Holy Roman Empire," except that the eagle on the shield seems to have traded in its halos for crowns. Of course the crosses of his orders of chivalry should also be noted, but I am not familiar with these, so I left them out.  The Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire itself has a long and interesting history.  Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention.  This has been an interesting study.  Auf wiedersehen! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, your blazon sounds nobel (genteel?)

in sum, great step further: the real cause i started all that is, on commons, we do name categories by english (for all users), so, we should name them not too highly stylized, but correct - that means commons:category:crowns in crest (see the content, there's not a single crest) and all subcategories are named definitly false, correct would be category:crowns surmounting? W!B: (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) -- Vielen Dank für der Deutschhilfe! Mein Deutsch ist ein bisschen rostig. I might add that the inescutcheon might well be simply stated as "arms of Austria", and another way to provide a more abbreviated but still correct blazon would be: Or, an Imperial double eagle bearing inescutcheon the arms of Austria, surmounted by the House Crown of Austria and supported by an Imperial double eagle crowned with the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire. Jawohl, sehe ich, das Schwert und der Reichsapfel sind gold, als habe ich mir gedacht, aber in der Schraffur über sind sie blank. Für Commons, sehe ich das: File:Wappen Ueberlingen 2.png hat "crown in crest" - der Löwe ist gekrönt. File:Arms of Suffolk.svg hat "crowned helmet", aber File:Malmö fulla vapen.svg hat auch "crown in crest". File:POL COA Andrychowicz.svg hat beide "crowned helmet" und "crown in crest", und File:Herb Straszyński 1.svg hat "crown as a charge", "crowned helmet" und "crown in crest". To say it another way, I think any coat of arms with a crown appearing in or on the crest itself should be "crown in crest" (that would also include a swan with a crown around its neck), but there cannot be a "crown in crest" when there is no crest. A crown resting upon a helmet should be "crowned helmet" or maybe "crowned helmets in heraldry". In the interest of 'keeping it simple', crowns surmounting a shield should perhaps be termed "shields with crowns". I think it is better to use simple (though accurate) descriptions rather than trying to classify the arms. What I mean is, "crowns surmounting" might be getting a bit technical for a category name. I think you have a good start, and thanks for the help with our heraldry stuff! You might also talk to User:Tamfang. He doesn't read German, but he is very accurate in his heraldic descriptions. Good luck! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) What about "Imperial crowns in heraldry" with sub-categories including "Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire in heraldry" and "House Crown of Austria in heraldry", etc.? Any Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire (or whatever crown is specified), regardless of where it appears in the arms, would be the criterion for inclusion. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ad 5. here is Ferdinand I., around 1840: two-headed eagle, [each head] crowned – thus, Rudolfscrown must hover (you'll see more of the same on Dr. Peter Diem's fine Die Entwicklung der Wappen der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, since Maria Theresia)
 * ad 6. article German heraldry is well done, maybe we'll do de:Englische Heraldik some time: I like english-style blazon, the right german word for that is (hoch)verklausuliert (you maybe won't find that in dictionaries, it says highly claused)
 * ad 8. royal orb or (see eg. Diem coloured)
 * thanks back for help with heraldry stuff ;)


 * separations of "crown in crest", "crowned helmets" and "shields with crowns" is good - i'll start that some time
 * the term "shields with crowns" is not so good, as it will be disambigous with "shields showing crowns" = "crowns as charge" (which is commons:category:crowns in heraldry by now) - i think we will need the precise description for "surmounting" (in fact, all three will be subcategories to "crowns in heraldry") - is "shields surmounted by crowns" understandable as common spoken english?
 * "Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire in heraldry" and so one - fine for affirming me: thats what i started, and what i asked all that all for: in fact i started also with commons:category:Austrian Bundesadler (todays eagle), and going on back in history, i reached Imperial Austria, to do some both "Imperial Crown of Austria" ("Rudolfskrone", which is the later Imperial Crown of Austria, the House Crown of Austria is an other crown, its the "siebenbügelige, perlenbesetzte" crown shown surmounting in the middle (Habsburg), between Austria and Hungary by 1915 - here, Rudolfskrone is right for Austria, left Holy Crown of Hungary) and "Imperial Eagle of Austria" - thus, instead of fully blazoning each CoA with categories, its enought to blazon as Cat:Imperial Eagle of Austria, which contains correct assorting (that is: eagle sable, doubleheaded, crowned, supporting chestshield (either gules a fess argent = Bindenschild, or Habsburg), Imperial Sword of the Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Scepter o.t.H.R.E., Imperial Orb o.t.H.R.E., the latter three came to Vienna after 1806, and wre used by Francis II./I. and successors)
 * W!B: (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Shields surmounted by crowns may be necessary for precision. [Taking discussion to Commons:User talk:W!B:.] Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry
Hi, just to say I've listed a few things for A-Class on the talk page of the article. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected
Thanks for this correction. I guess there is something to be said for cutting-and-pasting rather than typing things in manually. :-) Tomas e (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. It happens to the best of us. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re:Fred J talk page
Hi and apologies for writing as not signed in. I am currently on an extended wikibreak. You won't even be able to verify my identity so just take my word for what it is...

I will try and find a source for the question of the ducal coronet 1884.

So far, I have only been able to locate spurious references to two royal letters dated 18 jan 1884 and 20 feb 1885 where the design of the arms where set, and apparently the letters also set that "granted all provinces the rights to the rank of duchy and to display their arms with a ducal coronet." (cite from Swedish heraldry). http://runeberg.org/nfck/0332.html.

" Av allt att döma har sålunda Dalsland varit grevskap och använt grevekrona oavbrutet ända till den 18 januari 1884, då Kungl Majt medgav alla de svenska landskapen rätt att använda hertig - eller furstekrona, som den rättare bör kallas, på sina vapen." (http://www.abc.se/~m225/exlibris/skrifter/exlaveb35.html)

Other source says that the government decided it ( http://www.abc.se/~m225/exlibris/skrifter/exlomeb88.html ) but that is probably wrong, although I don't know enough about 19 century politics to say for sure. Linking to Privy Council of Sweden ("riksråd") however, as done in article Swedish heraldry, seems even weirder, didn't the Privy Council (riskråd) stop existing in 1789?

Ok, if I find more information I will let you know, otherwise I hope I have at least helped you somewhat.

/ Fred-J 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.179.193 (talk)


 * Tack så mycket för hjälpen! I know very little about 19th century Swedish government/politics.  I did take a college class on Nordic politics, but it was comparative and not so much historical.  I put the "Privy Council" in there because that was how it appeared in my (unreliable) sources.  I knew a better source had to be found, which is why I fact tagged it even when I wrote it in.  It sounds, from your source above, like this was a royal decree rather than a decision by the Privy Council.  If this is in fact the case, all mention of the Privy Council should be removed.  Thank you very much for helping out with this, especially on your break!  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I have had a little more time to look over it, here are my thoughts: There are several (maybe dubious) sources that indicate this was by royal decree on 18 Jan, 1884, and some sources also mention 20 Feb, 1885 as a second date.  There is only one (equally dubious) source attributing the decision to "regeringen" (the government), which I read as "privy council" as opposed to "parliament" (Riksdag).  Speaking of "privy council", I also found that it didn't quite cease to exist in the late 18th century, it just changed form.  There had been a government-appointed privy council (riksrådet) until the king dismissed them and appointed a crown-appointed privy council (statsrådet), which endured until the 1970s.  Both of these bodies would be translated as "privy council", but either way it is probably not appropriate to link to any of it in this case, as it seems to be a simple matter of royal decree (kungliga brev) not involving the statsråd.  I'm curious if you feel that any of these sources are appropriate to use in the article.  I would think the Nordisk Familjebok would be an acceptable source for WP articles. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Two Anonymous Editors
Wilhelm, Just in case you are wondering, I want you to know that despite having been accused in the past, I am not either of those two anonymous editors from Virginia. I'll tell you my own observations about both of them. Despite the fact that they both come from Virginia, I am firmly of the opinion that they are not the same person.

The one beginning with 72 has followed me around over a number of physics articles over the last year. But he has done so benevolently. I have often wished that he would appear more often. He speaks supportively of me, but quite frankly I would prefer it if he would engage more directly in the details of the discussions. I'm quite sure that this guy is anti-relativity like myself.

The one beginning with 63 was probably around last autumn. I suspect that he holds some sympathetic views on general relativity. If it's the same 63 that was involved last autumn, then he is not sympathetic to my own anti-relativity stance. However, I suspect that his pro-general relativity stance makes him at least marginally sympathetic to a Leibnizian outlook, and that he prefers to deal with centrifugal force in terms of polar coordinates rather than in terms of rotating frames.

I think that this guy had a long battle with Brews and Wolfkeeper last autumn. I was blocked at the time and I really wanted to get back in to join the discussion but couldn't. The arguments got very technical at one point, and I'm pretty sure that most onlookers eventually fell asleep. Nevertheless, this guy 63 was advocating two key points which I approved of. One was to unify the article, and the other was that polar coordinates (he tends to talk in terms of stationary curvilinear coordinates) are a legitimate alternative way to approach centrifugal force. Brews and Wolfkeeper actually agreed with him on this latter point, but they disagreed in so much as that 63 believed that it is all one subject and can be seen as such when it is fully comprehended, whereas Brews and Wolfkeeper were advocating that the centrifugal force in polar coordinates is an entirely different concept.

Whereby I had that level of agreement with 63, I suspect that 63 might have some views on general relativity such that we may not agree for very long. I hope that he re-emerges in earnest into the discussion because I think that he has got quite a positive contribution to make. But I do get the impression that 63 does not want to be seen siding with me. I get the impression that he has certain points to make and that he wants to make them while distancing himself from me, despite the sympthay which I would have for him on these particular issues. I get the feeling that 63 strongly disapproves of my anti-relativity stance. David Tombe (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three 72... IPs, all out of Hampton, VA and Norfolk, VA, and I am almost certain they are the same person. The 63... IP address is in Lebanon, OR, and is undoubtedly a different person. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Wilhelm, I would agree with that assessment. I was wondering whether or not 63 and 130 are the same person. I'm not sure. Their style was similar. I'm pretty sure that 63 was heavily involved in a prolonged argument with Brews and Wolfkeeper last autumn. I would have taken 63's side but I was blocked at the time. He disappeared a few days before I was unblocked and I had been hoping that he would return again. He goes into details which I don't quite follow, but in essence he is saying the same core point as myself which is that polar cordinates is a prolific alternative way to deal with centrifugal force, and that it is well sourced. It is most certainly not a fringe approach. But there is nevertheless definitive evidence that modern sources are becoming increasingly mute about using the name centrifugal force in those chapters and/or trying to strap the rotating frames concept around it. The 2002 edition of Goldstein gives an excellent example of modern revisionism. I will bring the comparative quotes up again on the talk page soon. David Tombe (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible, but doubtful that 63... in Lebanon, OR and 130... at Boeing in Seattle, WA would be the same person. At about 250 miles (400 km), that's quite a commute.  There is also 129.194.8.73, but (s)he is in Switzerland.  Any sources you have should be discussed in detail on the talk page.  I think now is the time to bring it all out into the open.  If you have any direct quotes to add on the talk page (whether or not you intend to use them as direct quotes in the article), that would help the discussion, for the sake of those who do not have access to the texts.  If there are sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of a third interpretation, I will do what I can to see that it is appropriately represented in the article.  But by appropriately represented, I do not mean it will be given equal weight.  By virtue of the fact that the rotating frames approach is the best referenced in modern sources, it will almost certainly be given the most prominence in the article (and rightly so).  Just because there are several valid theories (insofar as they are recognized as helpful in some way to our understanding of physics) does not mean they are equal theories.  Just a reminder, please also remember that this is a summary article, so its purpose is to treat the subject(s) in due order and with due weight to give the reader an overall impression of what is known about Centrifugal force while pointing the reader to some places to learn more about the various aspects.  Your approach might get little more than a brief mention, but that's okay.  This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal (as I have often tried to remind the others).  For better or worse, the scientific community as a whole is very skeptical of anything inconsistent with SR and GR, so in an odd way it is appropriate (even if inaccurate) for WP to reflect this. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I'm pretty sure that I know who 129 is and that he's definitely not any of the others mentioned above. 129 never supports me. He tends to criticize me to the crowd, but I think that he holds an anti-relativity viewpoint like myself. When he enters the debate in earnest, I can never clearly figure out what point he is making. He did support the unification of the article, and he did once make the legitimate point that the rotating frames approach can overlap with the 'reactive approach'. I've never heard him on polar coordinates or planetary orbits.

As regards the polar coordinate and planetary orbital approach, all I ever had in mind was a very short section of a few lines which would state that centrifugal force is a term which arises when Newton's laws are expressed in polar coordinates and that it is used in the radial equation for the Keplerian orbit. The conservation of angular momentum converts it to an outward inverse cube law force and the radial equation was first developed by Leibniz. State the equation (reference it to equation 3-12 in Goldstein) and then state that it solves to yield hyperbolic, parabolic, or elliptical orbits.

The problem is, that if that goes into the article, certain editors will immediately swoop in and drown it in rotating frames of reference, even though I learned that entire topic 'rotating frames' free. Sadly, in recent years, some textbook writers have been trying to strap an imaginary rotating frame of reference around the two body problem. Totally unnecessary, but no doubt references will be produced and the section will end up being written as if it's essential to strap a rotating frame of reference around the problem. That's why I once asked them 'how do you strap a co-rotating frame around a three body problem?' and of course, I didn't get a straight answer. I got sources thrown in my face for cases where some authors had strapped a rotating frame around the two body problem. We are now seeing the fruits of the brainwashing by virtue of modern authors revising the older textbooks such as to make planetary orbital theory 'rotating frames' friendly, and the young generation are using those modern books to back up their religiously held belief that rotating frames are an absolute essential.

This is definitely exactly as anonymous 72 says. It is political correctness in science. It is a total lack of toleration of a viewpoint which is different from the popular approach of the day. And if they can't deny the existence of sources for the alternative viewpoint, they will then try and smother it under their own popular viewpoint. You really need to ask yourself as to what drives these people. I couldn't imagine myself ever becoming fanatically attached to something simply because I had been taught it. I am only interested in this topic because I questioned it and researched it and I wanted to make it more readable for the public. But here we are seeing editors reading the popular approach out loud to us as like they are reading a Bible to us and telling us all that there is no other way. David Tombe (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it is quite like the Bible thumping crowd when one's learned views of physics are challenged, isn't it? The only reason Bible thumpers get so hostile is that they feel the views they were taught about the nature of the universe are being challenged.  This is exactly why I made my estimation regarding the impetus behind the edit wars.  Editors can't edit for the purpose of preserving or proliferating their POV the way they were taught without the whole thing getting sucked into a bitter edit war.   That's why you ignited such a firestorm: people were writing their own views and defending them accordingly, and then here comes David Tombe to not only write a different perspective, but one that presents a problem to one of the most dearly held views many people have on Physics.  You might as well have stood there like Sinead O'Connor tearing up a picture of Einstein on TV.   O well.  If you do get your approach in the article, it probably should have its own section.  As far as I know there is not a branch article that deals specifically with 'centrifugal force in planetary orbits', though I do see Orbit and Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  Do you plan to introduce a new article?  If not, is there somewhere you want to link to with a 'Main article' or 'Further information' link?  I think the more information you can give about what you intend to do, and the more information the others can provide about their references and their intentions, the more it helps the discussion.  We need to work something out to a mutual agreement.  Of course that means no one will get everything they want, but it will be a situation everyone can live with.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, we can only try. But unfortunately political correctness is a disease which does not tolerate compromise. I can already see ahead to what is likely to happen. A compromise will be reached and then it will rapidly be eroded. They'll totally surround the polar coordinates approach with rotating frames and then deem rotating frames to be the only approach. There are sufficient references written in recent times by men who are clearly indulging in 'amens' to Einstein, and these references will be easily twisted such as to back up the false notion that rotating frames of reference are absolutely essential for the purposes of understanding centrifugal force. The arguments will be illogical, but they will be accepted by those who have numerical superiority. And political correctness can always depend on a large mobile reserve.

A few weeks ago, I went to the science library. I had been hoping to get a few clear cut references to back up the polar coordinates/planetary orbital approach. But all I could find was modern textbooks, most of them written in the 1990's. The oldest that I could find was about 1965 and it mentioned Newton's centrifugal force. In the very modern textbooks that I looked at, the rotating frames/fictitious approach became more and more in the face. There will have been a new generation fed on this wordwide who weren't even born when I was at university. It's going to be a strong tide to swim against. Newcomers will often come to the article and will want to parrot off their new found wisdom. We will see them arriving and wanting to merge the whole article with centripetal force because their lecturer that day had taught them that only centripetal force is involved in circular motion.

I asked at the library counter regarding all the older physics and maths textbooks. I wanted to see old 1930's and 1940's textbooks. I was told that they are in the basement of another building (perhaps in low oxygen rooms), and not accessible to the public.

I think it's a lost cause like relativity itself. We'll probably have this 'rotating frames' disease for a hundred years yet. It's not going to end easily. It'll eventually end when some major catastrophe occurs and the investigation reveals that the error lay with Einstein's theories of relativity. David Tombe (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)