User talk:DVdm

— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here. "They never be working' when they oughta should." "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself." vn-at least 355This user talk page has been vandalized at least 355 times. — Canard du jour — Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell us the secrets of life, because we're not ready. But maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years and 23 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

Dispute Resolution Notice Board Requested

This simply serves to notify you that your user name was included in a request for dispute resolution regarding the speed of light article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMmpds (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My comment, item closed. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Before I gave that warning, I had carefully reviewed all the editor's other edits, some dating back to 2020. Apart from bad grammar, most edits seem to add something to try to emphasise the role of other contributors beside Einstein to the subject of relativity. So I sensed biased editing and decided to undo the edit. Warning mode was triggered when my suspicion was confirmed by the edit summary of their revert: "In wikipedia documents about theory of relativity, "Einstein published in blabla" is stated although this fact is already famous enough and well stated in history. So, there is no problem state it here. I guess that some people reluctant to mention other scholar's achievements and want to make Einestein a super hero." Perhaps I should have added something about biased editing as well. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But you get that this isn't better, right? most edits seem to add something to try to emphasise the role of other contributors beside Einstein to the subject of relativity isn't a particularly problematic editing pattern; the fact is Einstein is a little over-hyped in popular media about physics. They aren't under any editing restrictions, and in this particle case there were adding material that absolutely belonged in the lead to an article that was missing its lead (Einstein should be mentioned in the lead, too). Can you reply on the article talk page so we can move this along?

Yes, I gave them some non-template coaching about musing about other editors' motivations. VQuakr (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence

Hi DVdm. You are one of the principal contributors to our article Mass-energy equivalence so it would be great if you could take a look at this edit.

And if you could find time to contribute your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Inconsistencies related to mechanical energy it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 12:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dolphin: I never really contributed much to that article, that is, apart from regularly doing quick anti-vandalism/spam/badgrammar/origresearch on it. I don't really have the time to look into this now. The topîc on the physics project will surely help sorting it out . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Vaeiable Speed Of Light Disagreement well documented

Thank you for comments about my additions to the page Variable Speed if light.

I did in fact reference passages in six books that are well known and written by famous people. All of my additions except one support the view of Einstein, Born, and Tolman, referred to in other parts of the page. The disagreement of Peter Bergmann is well documented in his book The riddle of Gravitation, in which he argued for several pages against the Einstein view.

The disagreement is important because the Bergmann view is taught in college and the Einstein view is seldom mention, although it is well documented in the six books I referenced.

Thanks again for your reply. As always you are welcome to change my addition to the page Variable speed of light. Astrojed (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this. Anyway, I have undone ([1]) your edit about setting ds to zero again. Not in the sources. Please stop adding wp:original research to articles. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting VLS Entries You Objected To

My policy is to respect the opinions of others. I deleted my recent additions to VLS page although I believe my short entries derived from references to 7 famous books were appropriate and well enough written. I did not write my opinions or take sides in the arguments that have continued more than 50 years. Astrojed (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Astrojed: Thanks for this and happy 2023! - DVdm (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DVdm!

Happy New Year!

DVdm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for removing the edit on the Wave-Particle Duality?

Hi DVdm, I am trying to update the new development on the Wave-Particle duality. Is there a reason why the edit was removed?

Thanks, Hong Hongdusocal (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hongdusocal: yes, hi there. As I explained in the edit summary of my revert, I removed your edit per lack of notability. See wp:primary source and wp:recentism. When this publication is sufficiently mentioned in the relevant literature, and thus in wp:secondary sources, it might be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. See also wp:NOT. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Time dilation

I do want to have some mention of the psychological sense on the time dilation page because people do use the phrase time dilation in that sense. Maybe the {{see also}} template wasnt the best choice, but I couldnt think of anything else. Would you be okay with some other type of hatnote, saying something like "for the term used in psychology, see time perception"? Thanks, —Soap— 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soap: Hi there, something that suggests that the term should not be confused, would be okay, as it is done in the article Relativism:

For the physics theory, see Theory of relativity.

So, how about indeed:

For the term used in psychology, see Time perception.

or, even better:

This page is about a physical concept. For the term used in psychology, see Time perception.

And of course, the other way around in article Time perception, perhaps:

This page is about a term used in psychology. For the physical concept, see Time dilation.

Afaiac, go ahead. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Van Cittert-Zernike

Literature does NOT decide how to write Dutch names, mister. Dutch language does!!! But yes, it's a fact that you English have NO TALENT at all for foreign languages. And it seems (looking at your own actions) you are too stubborn to learn anything in this respect. So poor. Weaky3 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Weaky3: As an encyplopedia, Wikipedia follows the literature, by design. And I'm not English: my primary language is Dutch. I'm also fluent in French, English and German, and, thanks to my classic education, I can fluently read Italian and modern Greek newspapers whithout a dictionary. By the way, always assume good faith from your fellow editors. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

On the edit on Michelson Morley experiment

This is the source you asked: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

As you can see in the first line,Or even in the title, the experiment was on finding the velocity of earth. They assumed the existence of aether to be a fact.

While the experiment have disproved the existence of aether, it was not their intention. In fact Michelson Morley was a failed experiment. They didn't get what they were looking for.

~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophile249 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with just the four tildes (~~~~), without actually typing the <nowiki> tags. When you type the tildes, your signature will be substituted, unless you type the tags. — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Sophile249: According to the literature, the primary aim was to prove the existence of the ether, by measuring the velocity of the earth through it. We must follow the literature.

Also, take a look at wp:BRD: when a Bold edit is Reverted, and you disagree, start a Discussion, preferably on the talk page of the page that your were editing. Reverting again as you did here is considered wp:edit warring and is not allowed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought that you may not see my comment, that is why I reverted again.

Sophile249 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Gravity

there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ppppphgtygd: I have added a source, albeit a self-published one: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that source reliable I mean it is given as self published and secondly we need to see whether aryabhatta talk about gravity in his book Aryabhatiya.I didn't find any source about him talking about gravity in Aryabhatiya. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ppppphgtygd: I think the source looks reasonably reliable (—see [3]—), but, as you can see, I did tag the reference with a {{Self-published inline}} template anyway. This invites other contributors to find a better source. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok Ppppphgtygd (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have rejected that content outright as disputed and not well supported, based on higher quality sources that contradict or cast doubt on it. Other strong claims of discovery/contribution in that section of the source are also easily rebutted (example: our Aryabhata article has multiple sources that heliocentrism is at best uncertain but more likely not true). For whatever reason, Indian educational materials tend to over-claim Indian contributions in history. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks and Ppppphgtygd: Yep, probably a good call, thanks. I had a closer look at the book. On page 6 it says: It will become immediately obvious that the genius of ancient Bharata indeed forms the basis of world civilization, in contrast to the idea that 'miracles' in Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. influenced India somehow and anyhow from somewhere and anywhere. No wonder I failed to find a proper secondary source in a non-self-published source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

good, nowadays a lot of articles are been vandalised by a lot of people in Wiki thanks for removing it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When to use TeX/inline math?

As a new wikipedian I am struggling to understand where and where not to use <math> within articles. Is changing an inline equation into TeX generally frowned upon if it doesn't otherwise improve the quality of a given article? DekuNut64 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@DekuNut64: See MOS:FORMULA and the second section of Help:Displaying a formula, and, in general, MOS:MATH. One of the basic style related rules here is MOS:STYLERET and MOS:RETAIN, which says that when different styles are possible, changing one style into another is not a good idea. Also note that consistency within an article is important, so it can be a good idea to make style related changes to improve consistency — within a single article, not within the entire Wikipedia.

There's a lot to learn here. Best is to read parts of some of the guideline articles, and to have a look at the edit histories of math related articles. Then gradually go ahead, making changes. Don't worry if someone reverts your changes. When that happens, inquire, ask or discuss, don't re-revert — see wp:BRD. It's all part of a learning process . Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrational numbers

OK, there are, unfortunately, many books that attribute the concept of "irrational number" to the Pythagoreans, as I have known only too well since the 1960s, and such is Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" that you can use those to justify your change to the article. So be it. However, nobody who has actually studied and understood the relevant literature can believe that "number" is a reasonable description of the concept which they introduced. On the contrary: it was the cause of their moving away from using number as the defining concept in mathematics, and shifting to a view which considered geometrical magnitudes themselves as fundamental, rather than numerical measures of those magnitudes. JBW (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: Yes indeed, but note that the artlce says: "The discovery of irrational numbers, including the particular case of the square root of 2, is widely associated with the Pythagorean school". I mirrored that in my edit summary, "The Greeks found a number that cannot be written as a ratio of integers, which we call an irrational number." I could have been (but had decided not to be) even more precise and careful, saying "The Greeks found something..."

But I decided to check the literature and get some some sources either way, and it looked like a great majority in the literature agrees that indeed they discovered the rational numbers.

And indeed I think we can easily argue that they did discover them, without actually calling them numbers. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler effect

Thank you for pointing out the guidelines. I was not aware of wp:CALC, and you are absolutely right that I cannot include the derivation. It has never been my intention to break or bend the rules. The Wikipedia guidelines wp:OR state that the information should be from ”reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic”. Therefore, I would argue that the references are not limited to textbook examples only. Would it help if I provide an additional credible article? Aside from Einstein’s article I can provide other peer reviewed papers that confirms that the amplitude transforms as $A'_{E}=\gamma \left(1-\beta cos\theta \right)A_{E}$. I personally think the information is relevant to the article, and that it should at least be mentioned, if the guidelines allow it. What is your opinion? MadsVS (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@MadsVS: Hi, if the peer reviewed papers are not just wp:primary sources, and thus are referred to elsewhere in wp:secondary sources, the latter can be used as a valid reference. You see, the idea is that the secondary sources demonstrate that the content is actually notable. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your guidance is very helpfull. I will give it another shot, so let me know if you see any problems. Thank you. MadsVS (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)