User talk:86.83.155.44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding your edits to Light rail:

Your recent edit to Light rail (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Check: Dutch → nl:Gebruiker:86.83.155.44 from: ing. D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng C.L. with [1] and [2] or [3] → 86.83.155.44 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van der Pol oscillator

D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). For QED see: [4] or [5], and [6] besides → [7]

PS: de niet-lineair systeem Van der Pol relaxatie-vergelijking is hier op wikipedia onvindbaar, dus bij de engelse voor zo'n groot Nederlander als volgt te lezen:

  • Balthasar van der Pol & J van der Mark (1928): The Heartbeat considered as a Relaxation oscillation, and an Electrical Model of the Heart.
    Philips Magazine Suppl. No. 6 pp 763–775
  • Van der Pol & Bremmer: Operational Calculus. Cambridge 1964
  • Selected Scientific Papers: North-Holland Publishing Company 1960 - 2 vol's

In dynamics, the Van der Pol oscillator (named for Dutch physicist Balthasar van der Pol) is a type of nonconservative oscillator with nonlinear damping. It evolves in time according to the second order differential equation:

{d^2x \over dt^2}-\mu(1-x^2){dx \over dt}+x= 0

where x is the position coordinate — which is a function of the time t, and μ is a scalar parameter indicating the strength of the nonlinear damping. It can be proven via Liénard's Theorem that there exists a limit cycle for the undriven Van der Pol oscillator, thus making it an example of a Liénard system.

Eén en ander in verband met mogelijk oscillatie-soort relaxatiefunctie vragen. D.A. Borgdorff - 86.83.155.44 7 mrt 2008 19:21 (CET)

Gelukkig dat wetenschap, logica, zindelijk denken, en gezond verstand onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn. Thomass 7 mrt 2008 22:48 (CET)

[edit] About the 'De Broglie wavelength' equations

We can get Debroglie relation from the equation of Einstein and Plank:
E = hf = pc
Where E is the energy possesed by an arbitrary photon relative to an intertial frame of reference, h is planck constant, f is its frequency in that frame.
p=\frac{hf}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}
Where λ is the wavelength of the photon. We can then postulate that every moving body will have certain wavelength. The equation is experimentally proven to be correct for every body with non-zero rest mass. Similarly,
f=\frac{pc}{h}=\frac{mc^2}{h}
Where m is the relativistic mass of that photon. We can again postulate that every body with non-zero rest mass will have the frequency showing on the above equation. Since
vp = fλ where vp is the phase velocity. v_p=\frac{c^2}{v} Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass. Thljcl 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your math is at pc = mc2. I assume you got at it by setting E = pc equal to E = mc2, but the first is the total energy of a massless particle, the second the total energy of a massive particle at rest.
Part of what was so unexpected about de Broglie's hypothesis was that he took equations for a massless particle and played with them until found something new that's true for massive particles. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work that way. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For a particle with non-zero rest mass, when its momentum is zero relative to an inertial frame of reference, we find that
E = m0c2
Where E is the total energy, m0is the rest mass of the particle, c is the speed of light in vacuum. When it possesses momentum in the same frame,
E = \sqrt{m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2} = γm0c2
p = γm0v
\gamma=\; \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
When v=0, γ=1,

E=m_0\;c^2 Classically, we define momentum as a product of mass and velocity. We can still use this definition. However,mass of a particular body is no longer a constant but is frame-dependent and is a function of its velocity. Whatever frame it is, its rest mass will be the same. Therefore, many or most scientists today would like to regard rest mass is the only definition of mass because variable mass may lead to a confusion. For me, I would still use both frame-dependent mass and invariant mass. In my maths, m always means relativistic mass. I will use m0 denotes rest mass. Therefore,

E = mc2
E_k\;=(m-m_0)c^2=(\gamma - 1)m_0\;c^2
Where Ek denotes kinetic energy. For a particle with zero rest mass such as photon, its kinetic energy is ill-defined. The expression E = mc2 is different from E_0\;=m_0\;c^2 where E0 is a particle rest energy. I use E to denotes total energy. Wherever there's energy, there's always a certain amount of mass associate with it, though there may not be the rest energy. Certainly, photon has zero rest mass. It carries both momentum and energy.
p = mc
E = hf = mc2 = pc

Since many people dislike the term of relativistic mass, there's still an another way to derive the expression E = pc. That is from E=\sqrt{m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2} Let m0 = 0,

E = pc
Therefore, the derivation of De Broglie is correct with his own postulate. He postulated that all body with non-zero rest mass also have wave-particle duality in nature just as photon does. He personally thinks that nature seems to love symmetry. Now, we discover that there is a violation of symmetery in weak interaction.
Thljcl 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion made on 25 March 2007 is still incorrect, Thljcl. You said, "Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass," which simply is not true, even by your own ``derivation. You state that the frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy (including rest mass), but yet your last post assumes m0 = 0 within the derivation -- so you've only shown that the frequency of a body with zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy. This is obviously true because the de Broglie relation contains the momentum term p, which from the equation

E=\sqrt{m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2},

which you state above, clearly has no dependence on rest mass m0, as you previously asserted. Dchristle 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


In the Article "Phase velocity" they use the total energy instead of just the kinetic one to define the "frequency of matter waves". I don't know, what is correct, but I think the wrong one should be corrected, maybe including some motivation why it should be the total or just the kinetic energy.

  • René-Louis Vallée: L'énergie électromagnétique matérielle et gravitationnelle, Masson & Cie, éditeurs - Paris, 1971 — traduction libre par : D.A. Borgdorff, relativement: "hypothése d'existence des milieux énergétiques et d'une valeur limite supérieure du champ électrique". Ibidem via la SEPED – Paris, 1978 – Voir aussi: La théorie Synergétique (French) et [8] → 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transposed replications

From here with title "Thanks again" in resumption from D.A. Borgdorff and Ccfr: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Woodwalker, I herewith like to really thank you again for supporting me in the astounding a days long block up from Oscar, whose arbitrarily controversial knocking completely surprised me awe into silent awareness. So, then I have to reconsider my decision to write again, in spite of rehabilitation by the forum, the gracious action of Ellywa included. Astonishing ..., but as usual with all regards from D.A. Borgdorff, e.i. etc. by fixed-ADSL-IP: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ... PS: Just before his blocking at 14:46, out of nowhere came a socalled Anon-IP: 129.125.157.73 at 14:36 reverting (with comment) my edits in own TP, upon which Oscar 10 minutes later responded, curiously -- see history of those pages. Above-mentioned IP is from R-University Groningen, and supposed only used to tackle me I don't like this to sort further out. With excuses for my CE/AE-spelling errors, truly Yours: D.A. Borgdorff, by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Estimable Sir; I'm sorry to disturb you again, but yet an other block up now from mrs. Moira came unexpectedly after my complaints being thrown on a sort of blacklist by abovementioned CEO. I've tried to reach the - by mr. De Roo recommended - IRC-channel, but my typed reaction unfortunately didn't came through and I was even banned there after accusation of lurking while trying to contact for explanation again and again and onwards. So I'll have to report it here again with - in the mean time - utmost amazement, wondering about the level of arguments affected in numbers. With best regards I again remain sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff from number IP: 86.83.155.44 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear mr. Borgdorff, I already discussed your last block on wiki.nl with mrs. Moira. I am afraid she was rather uncompromisable in the matter, due to the large amount of what she and others call "useless edits" from your side. Fact is that anonimous edits have to be checked on wikipedia, and that's not very entertaining work I can assure. So I would like to suggest that you stop editing talk pages and start editing articles; or just open an account so that your edits don't bother the team that checks anonimous edits any longer.
When somebody does not show his or her name at the chat that is considered "lurking" and unpolite, because others are having confidential talk there and do show their names. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that you were "booted" from the chat.
I hope you will at least think about opening a real account because it will make life easier for everyone! Kind regards and yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: For message Mwpnl, see under blocking mediation. — D.A. Borgdorff - Electrodynamics & Power Electronics. — 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The nature of mass as a vortex of space-time

I found also the article a little bit confusing, excessively technique, so I introduced a better philosophical beginning to explain people what truly equivalence means: that we cannot distinguish gravitational forces and masses from acceleration. Thus the universe according to Einstein is in perpetual acceleration, as the forces and masses become under the 'strong' principle of equivalence (which Einstein favored in his seminal works and letters) accelerated flows of lineal and cyclical movement. I believe the beginning is not clear about the essence of this principle, which is - as all Relativity - simple in its appareance but with deep philosophical implications that change our vision of the Universe: an eternally accelerating one, seems today proved by the observation that space accelerates between galaxies and black holes. Where black holes are the most massive vortex, accelerating at c = light-speed.

Though the introduction was reverted and I wont place it again, I believe it is not clear at all the essence of the principle, which is the fact that acceleration and force are homologous concepts. I left your original introduction, though I think the equivalence between acceleration and gravitational force should rather be the first sentence and now is not clear. What I reposted, and please do not erase it as it is new material, that doesn't replace anything but is very essential to our modern understanding of relativity and mass, is a concept which has been around for a century among relativists, albeit poorly formalized, so: the nature of mass as an accelerated vortex, that is equivalence between cyclical acceleration and mass. Mass as a vortex of space-time is the relativist alternative to the concept of mass sponsored by quantum physicists as produced by particle-quanta. Since Einstein, the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time curving the acceleration of gravity into a cyclical movement ("time curves space") must be included in any serious encyclopedia that deals with all aspects of relativity. In my view perhaps because there are 10 quantum physicists (so: more jobs) for each relativist, the articles on relativity need some further reworking and extension. Please do not erase a mass part. If you want to change it, let us discuss how to include the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time, I will include quotes and citations if I have sometime to go to the library and get them.
Thanks Homocion (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Ccfr: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary translocation

Dear and learned Bob, with hesitation herewith disturbing you, I will have to draw your attention to the fact I already have been replying your questions three times, although none of the involved six administrators published their identity and/or c.v. nor even answered or responded equally, with the exception of mr. Robotje, who in the meantime abandoned, so to be assumed that they apparently feel elevated superiorly above your mediation. Considering the fourth more and absurd blocking again, I'd have to conclude too much opposition and class-justice to take seriously into account a sufficient and proper or sound judgement, which (but) consequently ought to be reserved. In addtion: watch- or black-lists, or such warning-templates are totally incorrect, and so the like have to be removed to erase, before I 'll start to write again. With utmost regards and esteeming sincerely yours D.A. Borgdorff from: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retrospection to blocking mediation

Beste Bob, nu maar even in het Nederlands: bedankt voor uw ondersteuning. Door al die rare acties wordt ik nu zelfs verdacht uit onverdachte hoek. Waar gaat dit in vredesnaam nog over.? Hoe kun je nu nog representatief en rustig werken bij voortdurende verdenkingen of verdachtmaking met blokkades, die het schrijven en bijhorende discussies als met Mdd of Tom blijven verstoren. Ik moet me maar telkenmale -- als ware ik crimineel -- blijven verantwoorden en daar heb ik géén zin en tijd meer voor. Als dat huidige blok niet snel wordt opgeheven, zal ik me moeten beraden op andere stappen wegens bijv. laster en andere overtredingen van recent bekend gemaakte internetverplichtingen. Vorenstaande doelt slechts op geconstateerde feiten. Alsnog hartelijke groet in hoge achting: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bob, because you have not reacted to above requests to abolish the blocking in direction with involved administrators,.. I deleted the last part of my objections, and will continue to proceed -- but for the fact of duration of time too long. With best regards, D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - etc. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Evermore clean slates
Evermore clean slates
    • Since I do not appreciate my full name being available on Wikipedia I removed it. Everyone can look up my real name on the internet, it's not that hard to find. This however, does not mean that I want it published, with a link to my photograph, without my permission and knowledge. Mwpnl (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak auxiliaries

Estimable and very learned Dolledre; sooner than expected I will have to ask you for some kind of blocking mr. Baas and mr. Robotje c.s. from editing -- if possible -- my pages ever again. Your nice picture of La Brugeoise reminding me of many nearly long forgotten years visiting the BN Consortium on behalf of HTM tramway vehicles for inspection and approval as CEO, i.e. e.g. nl:GTL8 & PCC streetcars. Owing to the present infirmities, I will unfortunately have to approach you here to accomplish written matters. On the same way I did post a message on Bob.v.R's page by exception too. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully your D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng by: 86.83.155.44 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Seguir el pulso

Estimado Don T.: muchas gracias por la ayuda a favor de opinión con respecto al antear el ambiente para desbloquear mi asunto. Cordial saludo: D.A. Borgdorff - ing° electrico recurso: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:48 9 jun 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Dmitri Nikolaj and estimated mr. Van Schie: I herewith like to really thank you for your helpfull support in the case of my recent astonishing blocking up from further editing again. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - MASc. by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cfr.: Colleagues = Celloman - Rikipedia - Lidewij - Balko - Art - Edo - Sonty - Koolstra - Londenp - Richardkiwi - Diogenes - Itsme - Drirpeter - Mastertim -Tûkkã - B.Dijkstra - WDV - Wikix - Mtthshksm - Erik Warmelink - JAM. → Regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking probably being supposed to must have so to be stopped definitely in this continuously handling of matters regarding my person. Unfortunately: in the moment can't see it differently. Esteemed regards with thanks again. As usual: D.A. Borgdorff - from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear dAb, we're still trying to get rid of that ridiculous block... don't loose faith too soon. Regards, sincerely, DTBone (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage Tom Meijer: "Helaas" - 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)