User talk:Fugal

The article is about "centrifugal force". It is entitled "centrifugal force". Therefore if centrifugal force arises in the context of polar coordinates, that should be mentioned in the article. The article should not be restricted to centrifugal force within the context of rotating frames of reference. But as you can see from the history, every effort has been made to keep centrifugal force as in polar coordinates out of the article. All past attempts to introduce the centrifugal force in the context of planetary orbits and polar coordinates were instantly reverted. The administrators have been backing up the editors that wish to maintain the status quo, and they have been treating the other editors as adversaries and twisting wikipedia's rules so as to enforce lengthy blocks. They can block whoever they like, whenever they like, and make up whatever reason they like for doing so. That is one reason why you are not getting any support here. There is alot to come out in the wash over this edit war. Notably, certain editors have absolute free reign to impose their own point of view. Tim Carrington West (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, this is an interesting debate to observe. They have effectively conceded your point, yet they are still refusing to allow it to appear on the centrifugal force page. The page begins at the top with a list of links to other pages, when in fact all matters to do with centrifugal force, including relativistic centrifugal force, should be included in one single article on centrifugal force.

Brews says that there is no practical usage of centrifugal force in polar coordinates despite the fact that this usage occurs in celestial mechanics. That as far as I know is a major physics topic in its own right.

And of course, by having shown them to be wrong, you have received your first warning,

While you're trying to understand the subtle nuances Fugal of the wikipedias policies you might like to try being less tendentious and offensive, and actually start to assume good faith.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for the blockmaster to arrive on stage very soon.

We also see one editor talking about replacing the word 'centrifugal force' with something clumsy like 'outward acting force from a rotation axis' as a way conceding without being seen to have conceded.

Tim Carrington West (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with these comments. After having observed this edit war for some time it is evident that if you dont go along with certain editors views, you will be blocked if you persist in your disagreement. There is also a failure on the part of editors to obey the rules, and the adminsitrators allow it.72.64.63.178 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I read the Anome's suggestions correctly? Is he saying that matters to do with rotating frames of reference can be adequately dealt with at the 'fictitious forces' page, and that the 'centrifugal force' page should be used to deal with centrifugal force in all its wider aspects? If that is what the Anome is saying, then I would fully agree with him. But that is not the tune that the Anome was whistling a few months ago when he was actively involved in editing the 'centrifugal force' page. I will be interested to see whether the Anome continues to whistle this new tune once he realizes that it brings him into a state of opposition with Wolfkeeper. You might soon find that it becomes 4:1 against you, not counting those that have been disqualified by virtue of having been blocked. In fact it may well snowball to 10:1 against you if they fully mobilize again. Meanwhile, keep up the fight. You are doing a good job. You have certainly cornered Wolfkeeper, but I fear that this may result in you being blocked. Tim Carrington West (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it now looks as though you have been fudged out. You can't win an argument when the opposition degenerate into poppycock. The latest section on the discussion page is total poppycock.

It's time to go to the main article and open up your own section about centrifugal force in relativity and see how it goes. But the argument on the discussion page will go nowhere now because it has degenerated into defensive poppycock on the part of your opponents, and they have a large army behind them. Tim Carrington West (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting very interesting. Wolfkeeper maintains that as he and Brews put all the work in, that this gives them some kind of priority over the article. Plvekamp enters, claiming to be an outsider despite having been involved in the past. He is actually backing you up, but in order not to totally upset Wolfkeeper, he uses David Tombe as a whipping boy. David Tombe's only crime was to try in vain to insert a sourced section on planetray orbital theory into the article. While the Anome spared no effort to frustrate David Tombe, he actively faciliated the adversarial expansion of the article by Brews ohare which he is now criticizing as if it was the fault of somebody else other than himself and Brews. Brews has certainly played the major role in writing the article but that is because nobody else has been allowed to do so. As for Wolfkeeper's claim to have had a major input, I'm not so sure about that. His input seems to have been restricted to fragmenting the article by devolving it to many outside links. All this fragmentation went on despite protests from many editors none of whom appeared to be willing to actually reverse the situation against Wolfkeeper's wishes. Timothy Rias seems to be siding up with you despite the fact that he was whistling a totally different tune until you entered the stage. It seems that your main problem is that you are advocating what David Tombe advocated. You want the article to encompass centrifugal force in its wider context along with a more general definition. It's not just physics going on here. It's personality politics. I wish you all the best.Tim Carrington West (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit may be getting close to the root cause of the conflict. It would seem that Coriolis force is of crucial importance to your opponents because it is used in their explanation as to how there is a centrifugal force acting on a stationary object that is being viewed from a rotating frame of reference. The explanation is that the centrifugal force is doubly counteracted by an inward acting radial Coriolis force. Polar coordinates on the other hand undermine the above theory because they indicate that Coriolis force is exclusively a tangential term. This could be the reason for the overplay of Coriolis force in the main article and the desire to play down centrifugal force as it occurs in celestial mechanics. I don't think that PeR and Anome will back you up if they see that it will bring them into opposition with Wolfkeeper. Their silence is deafening at the moment. Tim Carrington West (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper has now openly stated his belief that the Coriolis force in polar coordinates is a completely different concept from the Coriolis force in rotating frames, apart from in some special case where the two overlap. He cites the reason that in the former it is purely rotational (tangential) whereas in the latter it can be in any direction.

Bearing in mind that the exact same mathematical principles are involved in the derivation in both cases, we need to then ask at what point did the two concepts diverge. At what point in the derivation did the 'rotating frame Coriolis force' obtain the liberty to be in any direction?

If there was an acceptable explanation for the divergence of Coriolis force in polar coordinates as compared to in rotating frames, then we could fit the two comfortably into one article along with the associated explanation. But does such an acceptable explanation exist? This might be the root of the problem.

And what has all this got to do with centrifugal force? Well of course, the two concepts are indeed very closely related. But that doesn't mean that Coriolis force has to appear so often in a centrifugal force article. The real reason why it appears so often in this article is that Wolfkeeper needs to have a Coriolis force that can act in any direction in order to account for how there can be a centrifugal force acting on a stationary object as viewed from a rotating frame of reference. He needs that radial Coriolis force to act inwards against the outward centrifugal force.

This almost certainly explains Wolfkeeper's aversion to polar coordinates since polar coordinates fix Coriolis force firmly in the tangential direction.

It's time to test the water on the main page and I think that Plvekamp might even back you up this time. Tim Carrington West (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, nobody came to your assistance and the two owners were allowed to prevail through a pincer smokescreen of total obfuscation and confusion. The next stage of the experiment would be to see what happens if you were to remove some of their stuff from the main article. Suddenly you would be accused of removing sourced material. This of course would be real sourced material and not something read hyperbolically out of a book. How about trying a new simplified introduction which explains centrifugal force in its widest perspective? It's important to find out who would be the first editor to revert such an amendment. Tim Carrington West (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well bring this all to a head now because they will just give you the run around forever on the talk page. Notice how Brews enjoys total liberty to edit the main article. You on the other hand obviously feel intimidated about the matter because you only edit it sparingly despite your strong views that it badly needs corrected.

Make your amendments on the main article boldly. They will inevitably be erased within less than 60 minutes. But it will be a matter of great interest to see who does the erasing.

If necessary take a counter stand. An edit war will be inevitable but you will then learn whose side the administrators will come down on.

I suspect that you will be blocked. But it may have to come to that in order to satisfy yourself that the adminsitrators don't obey the rules, in which case, sad to say, you are wasting your time. So what? It's only an ad hoc 'throw away' account. Tim Carrington West (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fugal, they are more interested in policing blocked editors who have been blocked on specious grounds, than they are in obeying the more general rules on matters such as ownership, never mind getting their articles accurate. It was Wolfkeeper who fragmented the centrifugal force article, and none of the administrators wish to stand up to him. He has now gone off to squeal at the wikipedia administrator's noticebaord. 217.44.75.36 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fugal, of course it's all one unified subject, and only those who can't understand it properly would think otherwise. You are absolutely correct in that regard. The so-called 'reactive centrifugal force' (terrible terminology) is subtley different, in that centrifugal force acts on object A, and object A then acts on object B. It's a knock on effect as weight is to gravity. But it should come under the topic of artificial gravity in a unified centrifugal force article.

Anyway, I've given up trying to get unblocked. If you have a look through the Anome's user page going back a few months, you will see exactly what you are up against. There are entries that even mention you. I asked him yesterday if he would unblock me and he simply ignored it. If you look back through his user page history, you will see that there is a cordiality between him and Brews and Wolfkeeper.

Brews is even in the situation where he can stamp his feet on the ground and condemn the Anome to his face when the Anome deletes some of his edits, and the Anome immediately panders to him and invites him to roll back. Could you imagine me behaving like that and getting the same response?

Anome entered this dispute in May and simply assumed that Brews was correct. I think he now knows that that is not the case, but he has dug in.

It's a clear case of admnistrative corruption. Anome attempted to bulldoze me into complying with what he saw as the consensus position. When his persuasion tactics weren't working, he simply turned nasty and began the tactic of blocking me. He then managed to turn all the administrators against me with the result that I am 'indefinitely blocked' with my talk page protected. (protected by the Anome)

Wolfkeeper will spare no end of sophism to try to convince everybody that the limited case of centrifugal force as in the topic of rotating frames of reference represents the best way to deal with an article on 'centrifugal force'.

That editor called Travotore might just be able to help you out, but I don't know. You got off on the wrong footing with him, but I think that his removal of the forks was done in good faith because he believes that it should all be one article. I don't know who he is. He is a maths professor. Try contacting him anyway. He may be the help that you need, but I just don't know.

Paolo entered in June with some good points, but it soon all got clouded up in his endless discourses with Brews. I tried to get him to explain his position more clearly but unfortunately he had been flattered by Racecarr and he chose to kick me in the teeth as if he hoped that that would earn him brownie points with those who he was arguing against.

I don't think we're going to see a unified article on centrifugal force because there is far too much personality politics involved in all of this.

I just want to give you one piece of advice. Take a scenario that involves centrifugal force. Ask Wolfkeeper to explain to you exactly where his 'two' centrifugal forces come into it.

One final point, there was another editor called TstoneT that entered the stage about June. I think he was on the right tracks too, but Wolfkeeper scared him off and he disappeared. I was blocked at the time.217.42.109.40 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fugal, the unblock request was declined. They obviously want to maintain the fiction that you are fighting a lone battle against experts. I saw your appeal for assistance on 29th August on the admin noticeboard and you got a pretty typical brush off. Anyway, your key point today was Hopefully, in the long run, once all the editors understand the correct definition of this sub-topic, and then place it along side the correct definitions of the other sub-topics (e.g., fictitious force derived in curvilinear coordinates), and realize that they are essentially identical, we will be able to achieve some coherence in this overall subject. But I'm afraid we have a long ways to go before we get to that point.Fugal (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) That's it in a nutshell. The four terms in curvilinear coordinates correspond exactly with the four terms in 'rotating frame transformations'. They differ only in that the latter have a specific context. The former are general without context but can be applied to other physical contexts as well as to 'rotating frames'. The planetary orbital equation is a prime example. Kepler's law of areal velocity gets rid of the two tangential terms. We then take the r(omega)^2 term across to the other side where it becomes centrifugal force. The conclusion is that centrifugal force is a topic that is wider than merely 'rotating frames'. 'Rotating frames' is merely a topic that involves centrifugal force. Hence when, if ever, we get a single centrifugal force page, the existing introduction would have to be removed to a subsection and a more simplified and general introduction put in its place. I actually thought that they were going to unblock me and let me back into the debate. But they then left it all in the hands of a centrifugal force expert called Sandstein. David Tombe 81.152.111.182 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]