User talk:PhySusie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello PhySusie,

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Count Iblis 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


{{helpme}} There is a problem with the article "Black Holes". When not logged in, there is a sentence that is obviously vandalism at the very beginning of the article. When I log in to correct it, it no longer appears. Nor does it appear when I go to 'edit page'. I'm not the only editor to notice it as well (see talk page under vandalism). How do we fix it? Thanks!PhySusie (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (indeed before you posted here). See your post at the help desk. Algebraist 01:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

[edit] Faraday's law

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

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

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

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

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

This brings us to your quote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before you spend too much time trying to explain centrifugal force to User:David Tombe, be aware that contribution histories show that User:George Smyth XI is the same person. Rracecarr (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Aaah! I should have known. That explains a lot. Thanks for the info. PhySusie (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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