text:
User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 7

sun dog
I have sun dog on my watchlist and noted your edit to it; right now it's a duplicate of information on halo (optical phenomenon), as this and the sun pillar page were merged by somebody into halo (optical phenomenon) a while back. You might want to merge what you posted into the halo page. Neurophyre 00:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 08:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Hmmm... don't know. You're right, halo covers the same stuff... should it? Probably...

 * (Neurophyre 20:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I'm not entirely convinced, actually, because of the many types of halos. If people start adding more, the page is going to get unwieldy and huge, and it would be better to have a general description and then wikilinks to all the ones that exist perhaps.  To further add to it, there is already something like this at optical phenomenon.  I guess what I'd do for now is merge what you wrote in sun dog into halo (optical phenomenon) so that there's not duplicate info, and then later on down the road split the different types of halos off onto their own pages with halo (optical phenomenon) becoming a general description and a bunch of wikilinks like optical phenomenon is now.  I'd be willing to work on that once I get some spare time, and NOAA has some nice public domain halo images.  We could post a note on the halo (optical phenomenon) talk page, too, and/or on the talk page of the guy who did the merging of sun dog and sun pillar.

 * (William M. Connolley 20:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Yes... well sundog/pillar/halo etc are all manifestations of the same phenomena so sort of belong together... OTOH around here you only ever see sun dogs (very very rarely weak pillars).

 * (Neurophyre 22:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Why don't you merge it then and I'll put a note on the talk page for halo (optical phenomenon) and fix the wikilinks on optical phenomenon. Also the text on sun dog could be more obvious that there is further information, like "A sun dog is an optical phenomenon in which colored bands of light appear to either side of the sun at an angle of 22 degrees.  For more information, see halo (optical phenomenon)."  :-)  And as for me, I've seen sun pillars several times while living in North Dakota, but never a sun dog that I can remember.

Runge phenomenon
I think the edits you did on Runge's phenomenon made it wrong, but I can't proof it. For a general continuous function the polynomial error does increase when increasing the degree of the interpolating polynomial, even when using Chebyshev nodes.MathMartin 21:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I'm relying on Chebyshev polynomials. That says that Cheb poly produce the best approx to a function under the maximum norm. Since (clearly) a Cheb poly of order n is a special case of order n+1 with the leading coeff zero, then n+1 th can't be worse than the nth if that article is correct (which I think it is).

I wrote most of the Chebyshev polynomials article, especially the part you quoted. So in effect you are saying I am schizophrenic :). We do not approximate the function with the Chebyshev polynomial. We just use the roots of the Chebyshev polynomial as interpolation nodes. Check out Chebyshev nodes for a more verbose explanation (also written be me).MathMartin 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Err, well, if a chebyshev poly would be better, then use that.

Contrails and Sept 11
Article in Nature, August 8, 2002. Fred Bauder 21:23, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Tesla
Hi, William! I will have a look at it again, although probably won't have time for a little while. My "to do" list is getting out of control 8^(. Securiger 01:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm really not into getting involved again with all of that. GeneralPatton 21:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ferrel cell
"In the atmospheric circulation article, as in almost all textbook illustrations (with the exception of Laing, Fig. 145, p. 370 and Fig. 14.7, p. 373), a Ferrel cell is shown turning between equatorial Hadley cells" says the author of this article. Seems to me rather ludicrous to state that one knows better than all the major textbook editors save one. This article also reeks of POV. You would do a considerable service in rewriting it. Denni ☯ 21:38, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)) By bizarre co-incidence, I began re-writing this yesterday and then scrubbed it. I do still intend to, though - this only just scraped through VFD with my help, so I feel responsible. Thanks for the reminder.

Bell Test Loopholes
I was happy to see that you may also have sane attitude to some things, such as the weird page about Bell test loopholes. ;-) --Lumidek 16:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 17:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Yes, though I've sort of given up on that, due to lack of specialist knowledge. You might possibly glance at the gravity page too, where I suspect weirdness, without being able to properly refute it.

 * Hi William, I look at "gravity" - it's pretty long and relatively elementary, but the weirdness was not too obvious. Could you please be more specific what's wrong with that page? Thanks, Lubos --Lumidek 18:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Perhaps I was right not to get too critical then. To my understanding, sections 2.1,.2,.3 appeared dubious... e.g. Einsteinian gravitation is not exactly like Newtonian. Only the time dilation portion of it is.. And curvatures of spacetime are split into two components: curvature of space; time dilation. But I'm not a physicist: perhaps those bits do seem reasonable if you know more.

 * Hi William, these are certainly strangely sounding formulations and physicists would not use this language - but I sort of know what are the actual facts that the authors wanted to describe. It looks like bad terminology, but it would be too time-consuming to fine-tune all these details.

 * (William M. Connolley 21:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK, I suspected that it was something like than.

 * Concerning these particular details: what they mean is that in Newton's gravity, there is just one "gravitational potential" at every point - one number. If you work with general relativity, there are many numbers at each point - time can be "more dense", space can be "stretched" in some directions, and so on. In the limit where general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity, it's only the "warping" of the time dimension that plays a role. But if you consider very strong gravitational fields, it's not the whole story. You can't describe general relativity just by modifying the formula for the gravitational potential - there are many components of the metric tensor that describe the "gravitational field" in general relativity, which is also the other comment what they wrote: both time AND space can be curved in GR, while only the warping of time is what gives rise to Newton's equations in the limit. ... Later, I tried to modify the first paragraph you mentioned. --Lumidek 19:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Thanks. That looks more like what makes sense to me than the previous version.

William, I was kind of aware; but I'm just using a quick label to quickly categorise a number of reports at the same time. I'm trying to create and clean up "category:Sources" and while doing that I will make some mistakes. I will clean up later. :ChrisG 23:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandals - pilaging and plundering :-)
Hi - now we have something else in common, we've both been called vandals by JG re:consensus science. Kind of late, but I apologize for my hotheaded vandalism charge way back when. -Vsmith 15:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, but you're long forgiven for that... looking back it seems such a trivial matter, compared with the more recent troubles.

WP:AN
Please sign&date all postings on WP:AN and its various sub-boards; this posting by you didn't have one. (And if you could follow the usual style on Wikipedia, and add same at the bottom, so it doesn't throw us all for a loop reading it, that would be even better! :-). Noel (talk) 00:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IPCC's coverage of the topic is not a suitable resource for wiki
(note: this comment was on SEW's talk page. He clearly found it too embarassing to leave there. I am disappointed by SEW in this William M. Connolley 21:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
 * (Are you practicing psychology or mind reading? Keep trying. (SEWilco 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)))

(William M. Connolley 20:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) SEWilco: You removed the IPCC stuff from GW with the edit comment IPCC's coverage of the topic is not a suitable resource for wiki. These pages suffer enough edit wars without needing silly jokes. Please don't do this.

 * A sea level expert thinks that of the IPCC coverage of sea level rise. But you know that, as that is the same comment you made of about his coverage of his field.  (SEWilco 20:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC))

 * (William M. Connolley 20:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Please stop the silly jokes, if you want to be taken seriously. The IPCCs work is clearly suitable for wiki; removing it amounts to vandalism. Morner is not even close to the same category: he is an isolated individual who attempts to gain authority via association with INQUA.

 * The Morner discussion is in sea level rise and Talk. You're an expert in sea level influences?  Maybe you should provide your expert details over there so we can better judge your evaluation of what is a suitable resource.  (SEWilco 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

 * (William M. Connolley 18:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I certainly seem to know rather more about it than Morner.

 * Well INQUA did not elect for YOU to run their 111 member commission on sea level change, they chose Morner. So perhaps a larger body of scientists trusts his expertise over yours.     — Cortonin | Talk 19:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You seem to be rather naive about the way such things work, which casts doubt on your claims to be a scientist.

A GFDL First?
Is that the first RealClimate post with a GFDL tag at the bottom? Dragons flight 20:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 20:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Yes. I consider all my posts there to be GFDL, but the posts themselves don't say so. Using your picture has lead to a little internal debate about whether the whole site should become GFDL. BTW - I sent you a wiki-mail about that pic - did you get it? I would have credited you (DF) specifically, but your user page is still blank...

 * No, I did not get the wiki-mail, though a test mail I just sent to myself went through without any problem. Dragons flight 21:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Hmm, odd, I must have done something wrong. Its redundant now. Anyhow, I can still change it to credit you, if you like, though if (as it seems) you are a professional who would rather remain anonymous, I won't :-)

 * With regards to your post on RealClimate, I would prefer to remain anonymous. I may yet add personally identifying information to my wiki profile, but for the moment I am just as happy to be judged only on the quality of my contributions without any of the baggage that comes with credentials and associations.

 * (William M. Connolley 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK.

 * I wonder, does it make your activities here easier or harder to be widely regarded as a member of the climate establishment? Dragons flight 22:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I don't think it helps. Amongst the unthinking, there is a reverse argument-from-authority mentality.

3RR again
I've filed another report on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR about JGs behavior on Greenhouse gas. Thought you might like to add a comment. Thanks Vsmith 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That was fast. Blocked w/in 5 minutes of my report! Vsmith 00:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 15:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Good work. It was a peaceful weekend without him, now I guess we get at least 24h more peace, perhaps longer if he is prepared to learn sense.

And again - just filed yet another report due to his current round of unannounced reverts. Vsmith 16:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 17:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks. I'll look. Re JG: I'm starting a civility campaign: see Talk:Medieval Warm Period at the end.

(William M. Connolley 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note: I've posted a request for an opinion as to RFA at AMA_Requests_for_Assistance

WP:AN again
Second request: when posting anything on WP:AN or any of its sub-boards, such as WP:AN/3RR, please sign your edits. Also, please be careful when you edit; this edit removed two other users' comments. (I like to go into the history and do a diff to make sure your edit did what I thought it did.) Noel (talk) 13:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm, sorry about that. I can't explain the removal of the two edits - it certainly wasn't deliberate and I have no idea how I could have done it accidentally. Apologies also for the signature.

3RR again
User:JonGwynne has been blocked for 24 hours again (for the fourth time?!), see WP:3RR. BTW thanks for all your good work on the articles :-) -- mkrohn 02:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 10:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for this. You'll have seen the RFA I've filed, I hope. If that is accepted by the arbitrators, I hope you will consider commenting on it.

 * Sure. Where is the best place to make a comment? On the discussion page?! best regards -- mkrohn 11:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 11:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The next section down provides a link to Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Evidence. I guess that is for specific "evidence", and if you wanted to contribute there, that would be good. If you would like to submit a comment, it looks like you can add a section to Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, perhaps "comments in support of WMC".

Arbitration Committee case opening
The case against JonGwynne has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Geography of Australia
Hi,

I know this is your area, so I thought you might want to take a quick look at Geography of Australia. There's a paragraph about a recent study of the origins of Australia's desert. I don't know if the conclusions of this study are described accurately, maybe you should look over the article. Thanks, Rhobite 05:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Australia my area? Ah, you mean climate my area... I guess you mean A 2005 study by Australian and American researchers found that the desert interior was created by settlers who arrived about 50,000 years ago and set fire to the land, deterring the effects of monsoons. The findings were published in the journal Geology.. I can't claim specific expertise in this, but my impression was that the interior desert was a consequence mostly of geography and the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There may have been some human component but implying the entire interior desert was human-caused seems wrong. Also a proper reference should have been supplied not just a journal and year. Ah... I see you've found the ref. OK, the abstract; ..Northern Hemisphere insolation control on the intensity of the Siberian High, rather than summer insolation over the Australian continent, determines the strength of the Australian Monsoon on millennial time scales, unlike a classic monsoon regime. This bit, to me, says that non-local influences are affecting the "monsoon". ...Additional simulations show that the penetration of monsoon moisture into the interior is sensitive to biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks linked to vegetation type and soil properties. This sensitivity offers a resolution to the observed failure of the Australian Monsoon to penetrate the interior in the Holocene. Postulated regular burning practiced by early humans may have converted a tree-shrub-grassland mosaic across the semiarid zone to the modern desert scrub, thereby weakening biospheric feedbacks and resulting in long-term desertification of the continent. This conclusion is tentative not definite. Also... I don't know about the history of the vegetation in the interior. This abs gives the impression that its known that tree-shrub-grass gave way to desert, and that they are seeking explanations for this. I've edited the para to weaken it a bit more.

 * Thanks for fixing it up. People often overstate the importance of journal articles, so I wondered if that was the case here. Guess so. Rhobite 00:11, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

General relativity and rotation
Hi William,

I found some material that I think will be of interest to you. Einstein's explorations to finding the equations of general relativity were strongly guided by what Einstein called Mach's principle. A phyisics that implements Mach's principle is a physics in which all inertia is described as due to interaction with all of the other matter in the universe. Newton had felt compelled to assume absolute space. This absolute space acts on objects but is not acted upon.

Relativistic space-time geometry acts upon matter and is acted upon by matter. Einstein was eager to formulate a theory that would be axiomatically based on Mach's principle. The manifestations of inertia, including centrifugal force and coriolis force, are then seen as due to interaction with all of the matter in all of the universe, mediated by space-time geometry.

In 1916 correspondence between Einstein and the dutch astronomer De Sitter began, regarding a solution to the equations of general relativity that De Sitter had obtained. This solution, De Sitter space, is a universe without any matter in it, and with a G-field that determines the inertial properties of matter. If the equations of general relativity would be axiomatically based on Mach's principle, then such a solution would not exist.

After additional correspondence with Weyl and Klein, Einstein agreed that De Sitters solution is mathametically valid.

Later the explorations of Thirring into solutions of the equations for the inside of a rotating shell led Weyl to the conclusion that rotation is always assymmetric in general relativity. That is: Weyl (from early on a supporter of general relativity) concluded that in the case of rotation general relativity needs to assume absolute space. However, not exactly the absolute space of Newton. Uniform motion is fundamentally relative. The inertial reference frames form a symmetry group, and acceleration is seen as absolute with respect to that symmetry group, not with respect to newtonian absolute space. This, to my knowledge, is currently the most widely accepted view of general relativity.

During the period of roughly 1912 to 1920 Einstein changed his mind several times as to what the foundations of general relativity are. Clearly, it is very hard to fathom the logical foundations of general relativity. --Cleon Teunissen 12:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

References
 * The Einstein-De Sitter debate A 146 Kb PDF-document
 * Michael Janssen Author of the Einsteinn-De Sitter debate
 * [www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P210.PDF] Der Einstein de Sitter Kontroverse. A 1.5 Mb book with an 11-page foreword in english by David E. Rowe. PDF-document.

Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler
Hi William,

I found additional material in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 1973. Chapter 6, page 165, box 6.2 accelerated observers in brief. In this context, 'accelerated observer' refers to observers who are not in free motion, observers who are in non-inertial motion. --Cleon Teunissen 11:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * An accelerated observer can carry clocks and measuring rods with him, and can use them to set up a reference frame (coordinate system) in his neighbourhood.
 * His atomic clocks will show the same rate of time as unaccelerated clocks moving momentarily with him. His rods will measure the same length as momentarily comoving, unaccelerated rods do.
 * Let the observer's coordinate system be a cartesian latticework of rods and clocks, with the origin of the lattice always on his world line. He must keep his latticework small.
 * To deduce the results of experiments and observations performed by an accelerated observer, one can analyze them in coordinate-independent, geometric terms, an then project the result onto the basis vectors of his accelerated frame. Alternatively, one can analyze the experiments and observations in a Lorentz frame, and then transform to the accelerated frame.
 * As deduced in this manner, the results of experiments performed locally [...] by an accelerated observer differ from the results of the same experiments performed in a Lorentz frame in only three ways.

 * 1) There are complicated fractional differences that can be made negligable by making the accelerated frame small enough.
 * 2) There are Coriolis forces of precisely the same type as are encountered in Newtonian theory. These the observer can avoid by ensuring carefully that his latticework does not rotate with respect to the gyro-axis of gyroscopes that he accelerates with himself by means of forces applied to their centers of mass (no torque!). Such a nonrotating latticework has "Fermi-Walker" transported basis vectors.
 * 3) There are inertial forces of precisely the same type as are encountered in Newtonian theory. These are due to the observers acceleration, and he cannot get rid of them except by stopping his accelerating.

--Cleon Teunissen 11:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) I assume that the interpretation of general relativity of this 1200-page book represents the scientific consensus among knowledgable physicists. Gravity is viewed completely different in the two theories, but Coriolis manifestation of inertia is precisely the same type of phenomenon in the two theories. Coordinate transform does not stop inertia from manifesting itself, coordinate transform does not change the physics that is going on. The only way to stop manifestation of inertia is to fysically stop accelerating. --Cleon Teunissen 11:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet
please see my request User talk:172. Also I hope to finish my Arb comment until tomorrow. -- mkrohn 22:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that I filed a 3RR on SN and noted the socks. In case you're interested. -Vsmith 16:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for telling me. Sadly its been rejected :-(. Doesn't look like the discussion on the talk page is too useful :-(

 * Perhaps an RfC on the sockpuppet concerned would be appropriate. Alai 21:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Some sort of request-for-review-of-admin-action on 172 would be more appropriate I think, but I don't know where to do it :-(

Inadvertent delete of 172's protection notice?
You deleted 172s protection notice on the Global warming talk: page. I assume it was inadvertent? If so, hopefully you can add it back without losing the subsequent edits.--Silverback 13:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 14:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Oops. Not intentional (though I thought the protect was unhelpful).

Carbon dioxide
I've asked a question on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Courtesy Department
15:45, Mar 3, 2005, Ed Poor blocked William M. Connolley (expires 16:45, Mar 3, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (impolite talk page remark)

Re: :Image:Dscn5389-stw-marching-banners 600x800.jpg
Hi William,

Your image has been tagged with GFDL as part of the untagged images project and in accordance to the project's guidelines. It states that If it is obvious from comments or a copyright statement that the uploader owns the copyright to an image, then by virtue of them having uploaded it to the Wikipedia, you can assume it is GFDL.

If you like, do join me in helping out that this project and tag other's images. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 15:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm... OK!

 * (William M. Connolley 15:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) But note the suggested text lower down by Quadell: I think it would be better for you to do that.

 * Noted, thanks. :) - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temperature Images
I have been slowly compiling a variety temperature plots (because I am absurd and already have most of this data on tap). Since you liked the 1000 year plot so much, I thought I would point out these images in case you are interested: User:Dragons flight/Images. I will probably add a few more in coming weeks covering intermediate time scales (ie. between 2 kyr and 500 Myr).

Dragons flight 21:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for telling me - they are excellent pictures (I am slightly curious what you make them with - I use IDL, and excellent computing environment but I struggle to make beautiful pics with it). A plot covering the Holocene (to fit in with the HCO article perhaps) would be my next request, if you are doing them in order/to order :-)

 * I do most of my composing in Matlab with touch up in Adobe Illustrator. I'm not sure Matlab would qualify as easy to use to make pretty pictures, but I have been using it for a long time and have gotten quite adept at it.  As far as the HCO, I can pretty much assure you that something on the Holocene scale won't be the next one, because that's one interval where I don't have particularly good data at hand.  After 2kyr, the next longest time scale I can do without having to look up new data is ice ages.  Dragons flight 22:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 23:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) OK. As for Matlab... ah yes... we have occaisional matlab/idl wars.

WMC, After a couple weeks, I finally got around to compiling a figure of temperature variations during the Holocene. You are going to want to look at this: Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png. It shows reasonably stable climate during the Holocene and what would appear to be a mild Holocene climatic optimum. It also places modern temperatures as strikingly high compared to other times during the Holocene. Dragons flight 22:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 23:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Aha! Interesting picture. May take me a while to digest - thanks for doing it, and for drawing it to my attention.

Bangladesh
I requested the protect to avoid our having to go back and reverting the article again everyday. It was done to discourage the vandal, who erased the entire article at one point. I realise the war could be worse, but let's not take it there. Hopefully the vandal will head for discussion instead and then we should be able to remove the protect. -- Urnonav 11:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling
The Arbitration Committee has ruled on the case against JonGwynne. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for the notification. I am pleased with the decision.

 * I added your comment perhaps unnecessarily, on the evidence page, in my attempt to document the protection abuse by 172. --Silverback 10:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CMIP link
Hi - I've been cruising around (learning stuff :-) and found the CMIP links on Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project and Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project don't lead where I would expect (Common management interface protocol). Don't find a Climate or Coupled Model Intercomparison Project article w/search. Thought you might want to check it out. AMIP leads to a disambig. page also. Vsmith 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fix my typo AIMP --> AMIP above and I fixed the links to bypass the AMIP acronym disambig page in the two linking articles. Vsmith 04:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Oops - when I made the CMIP link I just checked it was blue, not what it lead to. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know.

Patience
I have been coming across the "your" pages, one by one, and I must commend your patience and persistence in dealing anti-GW POV pushers. Based on my own experience with lay-people challenging me in my own speciality, I know how difficult it is to argue against fringe views being asserted as mainstream, as being of equal validity with peer-reviewed science. Keep up the good work. Guettarda 17:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 18:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thats very kind of you and I do appreciate it. Thank you.

Solar variation theory
In case you hadn't seen this recent Atlastawake addition Solar variation theory. I've put a merge tag at the top to Solar variation. Vsmith 02:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, I wouldn't have noticed. Cutting the material out of GW seems sensible (only he didn't do that; I have now); merge with SV also.

 * Actually you made it worse by putting in the rather long explanation of greenhouse gases...I actually did make it shorter.--Atlastawake 03:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 23:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Errr... could you be a bit more explicit? I don't know what you mean.

Bring back quickpolls
I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? -- R yan!  |  Talk  05:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

rfc
Noone should be submitting new RFCs while this is going on. The banner I made was to the point, the one you reverted to is... ambigious. Please reinstate my banner to make it very clear. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I think I've made my view fairly clear on the talk page. I also think you are being too intense over this. The idea that no-one should be submitting RFCs in the meantime makes no sense to me.

Ferrel cell redux
Thanks for cleaning up the Ferrel cell article. It is no longer a grossly POV essay, and even though it's pretty stubby, it's still a clear improvement. No, I don't think you should have voted for deletion - whether or not there is actually a Ferrel cell (and there is nothing like a clear consensus), the term is in use and should be recognised. Denni ☯ 22:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 00:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)) You're welcome. Sometime I must get round to fleshing it out but there is so much else to do...

Coriolis force
Hi William, The following article by the meteorologist Anders Persson was very informative to me. The article was publisched in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society  External link: [http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~dave/papers/coriolis.pdf Article by Anders Persson. PDF-file] A quotation from that article:

 * Lorenz (1967, 29, 65) has commented on a frequent tendency among meteorologists to assume that the wind field is somehow produced by the height field in a simple one-way process and to overlook that they determine one another through mutual effects. The common textbook discussion relates to the acceleration of a (subgeostrophic) wind into a confluent isobaric field. Rarely discussed is what happens in a diffluent isobaric field: the pressure gradient force weakens and the (supergeostrophic) wind is deflected toward higher pressure by the Coriolis force. The mutual wind and pressure adjustment is a consequence of the mass and energy transport across the isobars (Uccellini and Johnson 1979; Uccellini 1990, 125).

From this I gather that on occasion wind velocity is higher than necessary for dynamic equilibrium with the pressure gradient and the Coriolis force will move the air mass against the direction of the pressure gradient. Anders Persson compares that to an orbiting planet on its way from its point of closest approach to the Sun to its point of farthest distance; in that part of its trajectory there is a component in the velocity of the planet that is directed away from the Sun, a motion against the pull of gravity; the potential energy of the planet increases in the process. In the part of the orbit where the planet's potential energy is increasing the centrifugal force is doing work.

According to Anders Persson there are transient occurences of air moving up the pressure gradient, if the Coriolis force is stronger than the pressure gradient force; kinetic energy is then converted to potential energy.

Part of the meteorology of the coriolis force, states Anders Persson, is that under certain circumstances the coriolis force is doing work, converting kinetic energy to potential energy.

I have seen oodles of internet sites claiming that the coriolis force cannot do work. As it turns out that is incorrect, the Coriolis force is often doing work (notable exeption: inertial wind; in the case of inertial wind the Coriolis force is not doing work.)

When there is uniform circular motion, then the symmetry usually precludes work being done. 'No work being done' is a property of uniform circular motion, not a property of Coriolis force. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Anders also wrote an interesting series in the journal Weather about a year ago. I am surprised to hear what you say about work: since the coriolis force is always perpendicular to the velocity, I would have said that was impossible. Looking at the PDF, I find "It also helps to clarify the relation between angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy and how an inertial force can have a significant affect on the movement of a body and still without doing any work." and "Since the Coriolis force is always directed perpendicular to the movement of a body, it can only change its direction, not its speed and kinetic energy: it does no work." and "Turbulent and frictional dissipations are important sinks for kinetic energy in the boundary layer but not in the free atmosphere where most of the kinetic energy is converted back to potential energy. Work is done, but not by the Coriolis force, as stated, for example, by Starr (1969, 198, 256), but by the pressure gradient force, doing negative work.". Where do you find him saying that the Coriolis force can so work?

 * Of course, the overall picture is that the pressure gradient is the reservoir of energy. In a perspective where the the total energy balance sheet of the planet is considered, the contributions of coriolis force must all cancel, and they do. However, the fact that overall the contributions of coriolis force cancel does not mean coriolis force never does any work, there are transient occurences of work being done and getting undone. So a statement of 'work is being done' is dependent on the size scale and the time scale of the perspective, and maybe I should have added that caveat right away.

 * Thought experiment: on a rotating ellipsoid, its shape in accordance with the rotation rate, no atmosphere, frictionless surface. What force is necessary to maintain a motion with constant velocity and that is straight with respect to the local surface (a geodesic on that surface)? Like in the rotating mercury mirror situation, the force necessary to maintain motion along such a straight line is not perpendicular to the direction of motion. Conclusion, the coriolis force is not always perpendicular to the velocity, it is only perpendicular in the case of uniform circular motion. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 20:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 20:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) No, sorry, this won't do! If you want to cite AP for Coriolis does work (even instantaneously) you need a clear an unambiguous cite. Conclusion, the coriolis force is not always perpendicular to the velocity... no, this is quite wrong: coriolis is V cross Omega, always, AFAIK.

 * Well, look at the mathematics of how the direction and magnitude of the coriolis force are ususally derived. That derivation uses projection. Projection is a zero-interaction, zero pressure gradient scenario. That means you can really only assume that this derivation is valid in the case of inertial wind, that is the physics-equivalent of usual mathematical derivation. (and I've seen that the derivation is beautifully valid in the case of inertial wind.) In the case of the rotating mercury mirror model in the coriolis effect article, the derivation of the necessary force for uniform motion with respect to the rotating frame is simple and its formula is different from the coriolis force related to circular motion. All sites I've seen limit themselves to presenting the formula that is valid for circular motion. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) AFAIK the formula is universally valid. But you can't go off saying Cor does work, purely on the strength of the derivations you've seen being done for circular motion!

 * For me the key element is that occasionally the coriolis force will move air against the pressure gradient, so locally the pressure gradient increases. Locally, sometimes, kinetic energy is converted to potential energy: that is work being done. (Invaribly, that work is undone later.) I can also use Perssons terminology: When air spirals inward, the pressure gradient force is doing work. When air spirals outward (can happen locally) the pressure gradient force is doing negative work. In physics, negative work of one force is work done by the opposite force. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 23:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Sadly I couldn't find better on the web, and my textbooks are at work, but you yourself have pointed to the AP ref that says, quite directly, that Cor does no work and is perp to V. Errrm... where is the formula for the mercury mirror case?

 * Well yeah, Anders Persson writes the usual cor-no-work. Again, overall, the contributions of the coriolis force cancel. Persson avoids stating coriolis force is transiently doing work by calling it 'negative work by the pressure gradient force'. That is consistent physics terminology. But the statements 'the pressure gradient force is doing negative work' and 'the coriolis force is doing work' are equivalent statements in this particular situation.

 * The rotating mercury mirror model in the coriolis effect article is approximately two-dimensional, which simplifies the math. The rotating mercury mirror serves as a centripetal force field where the force towards the center is proportional to the distance to the center.(In the case of the real Earth the magnitude of the Coriolis force is latitude-dependent, of course. In meteorology the formula for the Coriolis force contains the sine of the latitude angle.)The formula that I give for the force required for uniform motion with respect to rotating coördinate system is in the formula section of the coriolis effect article; the derivation is straightforward. The force of that formula is the force as seen from the perspective of the rotating frame. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 23:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Sadly I couldn't find better on the web, and my textbooks are at work, but you yourself have pointed to the AP ref that says, quite directly, that Cor does no work and is perp to V.

 * About force being perpendicular to the direction of motion - consider the trajectory of a charged particle in a bubble chamber, the charged particle loses kinetic energy as it is knocking electrons out of the orbits of molecules it is hitting. If there is a uniform magnetic field the charged particle will spiral inward. Without that magnetic field the linear velocity would just decrease. As the particle is spiralling inward, the Lorentz force is doing work, the radius of the trajectory is decreasing. In a vacuum chamber charged particles follow stable circular trajectories, then the Lorentz force isn't doing work. But when the trajectory is spiralling inward the Lorentz force is doing work. Whenever the radius of motion decreases the orbit is not circular. It is only when the orbit is perfectly circular that no work is being done. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) All this is besides the point. Its words. What you need is the mathematical formula for the coriolis force.

 * I think words can convey mathematical concepts as well as formulas can. Words can convey logic. The kinematics of moving around in a centripetal forcefield is logic application of principles of motion. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 09:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 10:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Words are nice, yes. But in this case the question is about a mathematical construct - the coriolis force. And the coriolis force is essentially a change-of-coordinates force, and thus squarely within the realm of pure maths (this is kinematics; no physics need be involved). And so the solution is to inspect the exact formula. And when I find that formula (or when I find confirmation that what I think is the formula really is it) then I'll make that inspection.

Guys, the Coriolis force: $$\vec F = 2m \vec v \times \vec \omega$$ can do no work, because $$\vec F \cdot \vec v = 2m (\vec v \times \vec \omega) \cdot \vec v = 0$$. The confusion that Cleon is having is that while the Coriolis force can do no work it can cause work to be done and this is what AP is describing. In that specific example, the notion is that Coriolis force changes the direction of the air parcel and the inertia then causes it to move against the pressure gradient. Hence work is done by the pressure gradient. It is not technically correct to say that the Coriolis force did work since at each instant the Coriolis force is directed perpendicular to the motion, but the Coriolis force can allow other forces to do work by changing the path of the motion.

In the Lorentz force example Cleon gives, again no work is done by the Lorentz force. The work is down by the friction of encounters with particles in the air. Wait? If the particle is spiraling inward, doesn't the particle have a component of velocity towards the center? Yes it does, but the Lorentz force $$\vec F = q \vec v \times \vec B$$, is always perpendicular to the motion. This means, paradoxically perhaps, that for a particle spiraling inward, the the Lorentz force will always be deflected away from the center by exactly the amount neccesary to ensure that it is doing no work. That's right, for a particle in a decaying spiral, the instantaneous force does not actually point to the center of rotation.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Coriolis force is specifically the force given by $$\vec F = 2m \vec v \times \vec \omega$$ and applies in a uniformly rotating reference frame. In the case of other situations, such as motion constrained to a rotating ellipsoid, one would derive other fictituous forces (sometimes termed constraint forces). In certain situations, it is possible for the constraint force to not be perpendicular to the motion, in which case they could routinely do work. In rotating situations, it would usually be described in terms of a Coriolis term (which does no work) plus other terms.

Anyway, the take home message is that the Coriolis force by definition can never do any work, but because it can change the path of a particle it can cause (or allow) other forces to do work on the particle. Dragons flight 11:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, that looks good to me: the coriolis effect almost literally acts like a hinge. By contrast, a gravitational force field can act like reservoir, a "storage" of potential energy. There is the coriolis manifestation of inertia, but there is no "coriolis force field", not in the sense of representing potential energy, so it cannot act as a reservoir, everything the coriolis effect does is immediate. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coriolis force formula
(William M. Connolley 10:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Words are nice, yes. But in this case the question is about a mathematical construct - the coriolis force. And the coriolis force is essentially a change-of-coordinates force, and thus squarely within the realm of pure maths (this is kinematics; no physics need be involved). And so the solution is to inspect the exact formula. And when I find that formula (or when I find confirmation that what I think is the formula really is it) then I'll make that inspection.

 * I will try to derive a formula rigorously. A formula for uniform motion in a centripetal force field, as modeled by the 'rotating mercury mirror world'. I think I will try first the formula for the force required for uniform motion in the radial direction of the rotating system. To move with constant velocity against a centripetal force field requires a force-component in the radial direction of the rotating system, and to prevent being deflected from moving in radial direction a tangential component is required.--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the physical consequence of a change of coordinates?
(William M. Connolley 10:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Words are nice, yes. But in this case the question is about a mathematical construct - the coriolis force. And the coriolis force is essentially a change-of-coordinates force,

 * What is the physical' consequence of a change of coordinates? Compare the example of the electric car, designed to recharge the battery system when switched to braking. The amount of recharging, the amount of work that is being done is independent of the choice of coordinate system. Changing the choice of coordinate system cannot possibly change the physics that is going on.
 * I think it is better to avoid a phrasing like 'change-of-coordinates force'. I think it is not a good metaphor. (assuming it is meant metaphorically). --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 16:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) You are too ready to veer off into words and consider-the-example-of, I think.

Let's stick to the coriolis force
(William M. Connolley 16:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Lets stick to the coriolis force, or rather the coriolis acceleration. If we consider the cor acc, then we don't need any physics whatsoever. It is pure kinematics: pure change-of-coordinates. This is not a metaphor. This is exact. In fact, its best to *start* from cor acc, then talk about cor force. Because this is, fundamentally, what the cor acc/force is (and quite possibly what gravity fundamentally is, too).

 * I propose to take inertial wind as starting point. As the name says, inertial wind is air moving inertially. On the northern hemisphere, inertial wind goes clockwise. When wind is circulating a low pressure area, the air is moving counterclockwise. Circulating a low pressure area, the air isn't turning to the right, as the coriolis force would have it, it's turning to the left.

 * As dragons flight writes, when there are constraints then the resultant acceleration is a product of several influences. All derivations I've seen derive a formula that is valid when coriolis effect is the only influence. As it appears this formula is valid too in the constrained circumstances, but I haven't seen a derivation of that anywhere. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 16:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I deleted the "formula for linear motion" from the coriolis effect article. It doesn't match either of the tho definitions in the next section.

Arbitration Notification
I have initiated a request for arbitration, lodging a complaint against you. In accordance with policy, this is your notification. The request is located here. — Cortonin | Talk 01:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 21:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thank you. Hopefully you and I will both learn something useful.

Interesting note re: Arb
In case you missed this rejected vote, I found it amusing and instructive. At least he has read the first page of State of Fear :-) Vsmith 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 08:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I had missed it. Thanks. Looks like he is getting ideas above his station...

Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against you. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 05:12, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)) OK, thanks.

Hi William.

I am sorry to hear that you are the focus of ArbCom. Whilst I'm not sure if there is anything I can do to help, I will lodge my support for you here.

The high levels of anti-GW bias on the Wikipedia is daunting and you've done you best patiently and with excellent command of Science and the facts. I was particularly surprised to hear that Ed Poor used his admin priviliges to block you in a dispute in which he was personally involved. In the face of such opposition, lesser men (such as I ;) would have shied away but you continue to ensure that the global warming and related articles remain on-topic and NPOV (well, as close as we can get).

Again, if you need my help do not hesitate to get in touch. --Axon 13:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Good luck on the RfA - I find it disturbing when someone working in a field has this much trouble keeping a page balanced. And a "me too" on Axon's comments.  Guettarda 15:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for your comments, which are heartening. If you feel able, I would be grateful if you could repeat your comments on the RFA/Evidence page. Evidence is best, but comments are allowed too I think; and a comment, as you put above, that you are put off editing because of the controversy (err, from one side :-) would be valuable.

 * Done, with some evidence :) I hope my rambling remarks go in your favour, rather than work against it. --Axon 11:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 16:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks, that looks good, and I hope should count in my favour.

Not at all. I wouldn't worry too much about the RfA. Even your opponents admit that you haven't actually done anything wrong and have only been editing according to your own POV: if that's a crime a lot of other editors are in trouble. Again, let me know if there is anything else I can do. --Axon 10:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry about the Solar greenhouse (technical) mess. I don't know what Cs impatience was really about. But, as I've alluded on the talk there, seems maybe he was trolling to get evidence for the arb case? Don't rightly know. I was learning and can see a pretty lengthy article on the topic with only a minor reference needed to the controversial global greenhouse effect. If he could have shown a bit of restraint I was planning to actually agree with him more on some operational details. Good luck. Vsmith 13:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Advanced Wikipedian
Hi William,

I'm guessing you are the sort of guy who know's his Iambic pentameter from his limerick (I don't really), but if so, you might be able to improve, correct and extend The Advanced Wikipedian. -- Solipsist 22:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's back :-)
Take a look at, looks like JonGwynne is busy as 24.87.210.3. -Vsmith 11:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 13:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for the note, and for fixing it. Extra vigilance! BTW, I have the hortistoat paper, for my sins.

Sar and SAR
Hello William would you consider requesting for assistance, mediation or comment for the long revert war with SchmuckyTheCat? — Instantnood 09:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

RfAr etc
Dismissing scientists as an advocacy group is a pretty major slander. For Ed's point to hold water, most scientists (those in a position to judge, at least) would be guilty of covering up the flaws in the science. As an academic, that would amount to misconduct. So Ed is alleging that most academics are liars. If one were to say something like that about an ethnic or national group they would get drummed out as racists. I don't appreciate being called a liar...and I'm aspie enough to take that as a very serious issue. He replied to what I said on his talk page, apparently, but I have no desire to get banned, and I am still angry enough to say something bannable. I'm doubly sensitive because I am an organismal biologist - I am used to these attacks on Evolution. It's the same crap coming from another direction. I am living in the US right now (Oklahoma, Inhofe's state!)...I just feel very threatened by this systematic campaign by the right wing. I bothered to read the Unification Church article, and more importantly, the talk page. Talking points plus talking points. That's what I see. Yeah, I realise, I sound like a paranoid nut. I'm letting this place get to me at last. But anyway...I will lie low for a few days, catch up on some of the work I don't get done because I spend too much time on Wikipedia...

And thanks for your comments. Guettarda 23:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to establish what physics is taking place
(William M. Connolley 08:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Well of course you can make the Coriolis effect vanish. All you need to do is transform back into the original frame. But this has no effect on the *physics* of course.

 * Hi William,

 * Let me try to explain why our last conversation, about the coriolis effect, was so puzzling to me. For comparison: on the Talk page of the garden greenhouse article you argued to Cortonin that the physical cause of the garden greenhouse effect should be evaluated as follows: change the transparancy to say, infrared and see whether the garden greenhouse is still "greenhousing"(and it is). Change the suppression of convective loss of heat and see whether the garden greenhouse is still "greenhousing"(it's not). In this way it is established that suppression of convection is the primary contributor to the greenhousing of the garden greenhouse.

 * I argue that the physical cause of the coriolis effect should be evaluated with the same type of approach as in the case of the garden greenhouse. When the causal chain of the coriolis effect, as it occurs in the seas and atmosphere of the Earth, is traced back, you end up with the fact that the Earth is rotating. A change of coordinates in a calculation has (obviously) no effect on the terrestrial coriolis effect. So what makes you claim that the coriolis effect is 'primarily a change-of-coordinates effect? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The GHE is a physical effect - it depends on the presence or absense of real objects and their properties. And I agree, of course, that the physical effects of the earths rotation have a strong effect on the physical properties of the circulation. I hope I haven't given the impression otherwise. But you are entitled, if you wish, to express the physics of the earths coordinates in a frame of reference inertial wrt the fixed stars, if you so desire. People don't, because it would be hideously complicated. In such a frame, you would of course not have a coriolis force (you would presumably end up with terms with different labels which would produce the same effects). But the solutions, once re-expressed, would end up with the same ocean velocities wrt the ocean bed. Of course. This is why I say its a change-of-coords acceleration.

 * Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I have always assumed that you agree that coriolis effect is physics taking place. I just couldn't fathom why you nonetheless preferred to call it 'primarily a change-to-rotating-coordinate-system-effect' Actually I still can't. Nature doesn't calculate what's supposed to happen, it just happens.

 * By the way, it suffices to state 'an inertial frame of reference'. According to general relativity, the local inertial frame of reference can rotate with respect to the fixed stars, so formally the fixed stars are not relevant as reference . Around Earth the predicted rotation is in the order of tens of mili-arcseconds per year, but hey, it's not zero. (Possibly this frame dragging is significant close to a rapidly spinning neutron star.)

 * The fixed stars are not necessarey as reference of rotation. The ring laser experiment of Canterbury university New Zealand uses a ring laser interferometer to monitor the rotation rate of Earth (The rotation rate with respect to the local inertial frame, not with respect to the fixed stars!). The Helium-Neon laser has a frequency of 473 TeraHz. Because of the rotation of Earth, the counterclockwise and clockwise laserlight in the interferometer goes out of phase lock, and they they end up with a steady 70.7 Hz difference in frequency. The two frequencies of the laserlight are led to produce an interference pattern, that in this case takes the form of a beat frequency. The 70.7 Hz beat frequency is consistent with the rotation rate of Earth. The Canterbury equipment is so sensitive they can measure fluctuations in the 70.7 Hz beat frequency to microHz precision.  External links: The operating principle of the ring laser interferometer Interview with the team that performs the Canterbury ring laser interferometer measurements

 * What's really neat about that ring laser interferometer is that it doesn't require calibration by comparison with an outside reference. All the experimentor needs to know is the area that is circumscribed by the laserlight, and the frequency of the laserlight. That plus the beat frequency that arises automatically as a consequence of the rotation is enough to measure the rotation rate of Earth. The ring laser interferometer is situated in a cave, shielded as much as possible from any possible outside influence.
 * I have written about the Canterbury ring laser interferometer before, but I didn't half understand it back then. Back then I wrote that it measures absolute rotation, which is only true in the sense that it is not a relative measurement; no calibration is required. In writing the Sagnac interferometer article, I have collaborated with EMS, who currently works on the Equivalence principle article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ERRATUM. I have collaborated with EMS on the Sagnac effect article, the sagnac interferometer article is someone elses stub. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 15:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Back to the coriolis effect. Calculations using an inertial frame of reference wouldn't be much more complicated. It would have to be programmed, and after that the computers take care of it. It is complex anyway. In a cartesian coordinate system, a single acceleration law suffices: F=ma. But then again, in the inertial frame of reference, even air that is motionless with respect to Earth must be "tracked" in its circular motion around the axis of the Earth. In a co-rotating coordinate system, three laws of acceleration are required: one proportional to radius: centripetal force, one proportional to velocity: coriolis force, and the regular F=ma. It's a trade-off. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 11:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Calculations, for the earth, in an inertial frame would be far more complicated; this is why no one ever does it. I am still unable to understand why you don't see that the coriolis acceleration is maths/kinematics, not physics. All you are doing is changing coordinate systems.

Validity of a line of reasoning
The mystery remains. Of course, when air motions are to be calculated the calculations stategy involves converting between coordinates systems that are rotating with respect to each other.

I remember the calculation strategy that was used in WW II by the teams in the United States that were working frantically to develop atom bombs. They applied statistics. Each time an Uranium nucleus absorbs a neutron it will split, and two or three neutrons will be emitted, in randon direction and in a range of velocities. So how are you ever going to calculate how a nuclear detonation develops, and how much energy is likely to be released? Will the Uranium "charge" be blasted apart when only a tiny fraction of the uranium has split? Or will the atomic chain reaction progress so fast there is no time to fly apart? The calculation strategy that was used to come up with answers to those questions was a statistical one. They would proceed sequentially, and whenever there were several possible outcomes, they used a random generator to choose one of them. They would have several rounds, and compare them. This strategy was called the 'Monte Carlo method'. This calculation strategy turned out to be a strategy that delivered good predictions of how a particular design would perform.

You say that since in calculations of the coriolis effect coordinate transforms are used, it follows that the coriolis effect is primarily a coordinate transform effect. Do you apply the same reasoning the case of the Monte Carlo method? In your opinion, is the fact that atom bombs explode primarily a statistical effect? I'm not pulling your leg. If a certain line of reasoning is valid in the case of the physics of the coriolis effect it must be equally valid in atomic physics. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 15:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Atmoic bombs are essenially statistical, in the sense that they rely on QM, which is. But of course, what you mean is, "is the fact that a statistical method is used to solve a problem proof that the problem itself is stat". The answer is no. But your analogy is far from exact. The equations for fluid motion can be solved in an inertial frame, with a boundary codition of a moving earth; or in a rotating frame with a fixed earth and a coriolis acceleration. The two approaches produce the same answers (when the answers are transformed too), of course. One (using the coriolis acc) is far simpler, so people use it. But the difference between the two is mathematical, not physical. I still don't understand your point. But my answers seem to be going round in circles: I've said all this before. This is boring, to me if not to you. So unless I have anything new to add, I won't comment again.

I think I do understand some more now. I seems to me that we disagree about didactics rather than on anything else. You feel that it must in the first place be explained how the approach using a co-rotating frame is different from the approach using the inertial frame. By contrast, my inclination is to not discuss any of the mathematics directly. Instead I use pictures, and I wish I knew how to make good animations of them. I would prefer to let animations tell the story of what is going on. That's why I like the tidal force article so much; the picture tells the story. I think I have a better idea of your thoughts now, I think I can see how your thoughts on this fit together. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 17:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tidal force article gets it just right. It starts with explaining the physics.
 * The tidal force is a secondary effect of the force of gravity and is responsible for the tides. It arises because the gravitational field is not constant across a body's diameter. When a body is acted on by the gravity of another body, the gravitational acceleration can vary significantly between the near side and the far side. This tends to distort the shape of the body <BR>

The next section of the article describes how the tidal acceleration can be obtained. That's calculation strategy; it would be off the mark to claim: 'tidal force is primarily a vectorial subtraction effect' At the same time: visualising it as a vectorial subtraction does help understanding of the effect. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 07:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ


text:
Talk:Cochinchina

mistakes
There are a number of mistakes:

Almost all authorites use the two-word spelling Cochin China rather than Cochinchina. See  Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam Webster's Geographical Dictionary. Then try a Google search on the two spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.71.253 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 November 2007
 * "Almost all" is a pretty broad statement to make. If I remember correctly, all of the books I used for my MA dissertation this summer spelled the term as a single word "Cochinchina". These were professional academic works by scholars of Southeast Asian history, and I would trust them over general use dictionaries and encyclopedias, and over the assorted personal websites, blogs, business newspapers, and whatever else may come up on a Google search. More to the point, there is a lot of variation in Vietnamese place names (Tonkin/Tonking, Ha Noi/Hanoi, Da Nang/Danang, Viet Nam/Vietnam), and so while one spelling may be more common, that does not make the other ones "mistakes". LordAmeth 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition
Yes, Cochin China is the southern Part of Vietnam, locally also called Nam Bo.

No, it is not Jiaozhi (Vietnamese: Giao Chỉ).

At the time of the Chinese rule, Cochin China area was Khmer land.

Jiaozhi was called Tonkin, not Cochin China.

See the page History_of_Vietnam for the details. Also the page about Wudi_of_Han_China says that his empire stretched only to the North of Vietnam, not the South of it. The page about Zhao_Tuo says at the end something about the beginnings of Jiaozhi.

Stefan, living since 1990 in Hanoi

--210.245.53.3 15:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that "Cochinchina" can refer not only to that southernmost region, the Khmer land, but also, in earlier times, to the area north of that, also known as Quang Nam, Quinam, or Dang Trong. LordAmeth 08:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying the word cochin comes from Jiaozhi/交趾/Giao Chỉ>Kuchi is far stretched.

The most probable origin of that name is Jiuzhen/九真/Cửu Chân wich was another district.

See the page First_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam

87.88.93.126 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why named for Indian city?
The article should say why Cochin China was named for a city in India. Badagnani 02:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, is there any evidence that it was named after the city in India? None is cited. Neither is there a source for the assertion that the name was given by the French (rather than, say, the Portugese, which is another assertion one finds). Piers Fletcher 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

stub article?
why this article does not have a suitable map (the current map is confusing) with the regular infobox flag, language, everything, and proper governement section as found in all other countries? Paris By Night 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even mention Cambodia?
The Wikipedia needs to be objective, but it also needs to incorporate more than one subjective view of this history:

Prior to 1949, the land belonged to Cambodia, and there are still political protests in the streets of Phnom Penh to have the land returned to Cambodia. (Cf. Khmer Krom; this is currently a separate article about exactly the same "place", though the toponym Cochinchina was, of course, a colonial invention).

Every King of Cambodia during and since the French Protectorate has re-asserted the fact that the lower Mekong belonged to Cambodia since antiquity, and the last act of King Norodom Sihanouk was to re-assert this before his retirement.

There are plenty of published sources on all this. And, as I have suggested, the history is ongoing.

Currently, this article is written almost as fiction, from a pro-Vietnamese perspective, with shockingly few citations for its supposedly factual claims.

I have a detached perspective on it; plenty of readers will simply respond with outrage.

So, my advice to the Wiki-editors is: flag it, revise it, demand citations, or else expect the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.244.228 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is Cochinchina, the French Indochina colony. Not the Cambodian colony, not the Chinese colony. South Vietnam's background subheading already has the Khmer history detailed.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split
I think it would be a good idea to split the article in two and have one page about Cochinchina proper as a historical region, and one called French Cochinchina, about the French colony. Not only were there political differences, but French Cochinchina was consisted only of the southern part of Cochinchina : what became known as Cochinchina after the French conquest was only called Lower Cochinchina before 1862. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had proposed this three years ago and completely forgotten about it. No one has raised any objections, so I guess there's no opposition ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cochinchina, France-colonized South Vietnam has Khmer and Chinese names?
Did you read the talk page? There was already discussion that went ahead with it just being Cochinchina, the French colony of Vietnam and as such, the Khmer and Chinese names are irrelevant. Is Cochinchina the colony of Cambodia? China? I don't understand why there is a Chinese name for South Vietnam when Chinese' small relevancy with South Vietnam warrants a special name for it, and as such can't be put into Wikipedia. Is South Vietnam ancient Chinese territory? Tonkin and Annam (French protectorate) don't have Khmer or Chinese names listed. It's because they were both under the control of the French with Vietnamese citizenry.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Khmer and Chinese names have historical significance. As earlier editors have mentioned, the term "Cochinchina" has been used to refer to the whole of Vietnam and areas north of the actual region. Also, the region had historical minority Khmer and Chinese populations, they would have referred to the land in these languages. French Cochinchina was split into a separate article so that it is not to be confused with this article, which refers to Cochinchina as a historical term. --Valorant (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 * The Chinese don't have historical significance relevant enough to warrant a whole new name for South Vietnam. Only the Khmers do and even then this still isn't the right article. The US has Native Americans, Spanish and Germans as historical people living there, not just minorities. Do we call the US the Native American, Spanish and German names? Should we edit the article for the United States of America with their additional names? Should we edit China's article of the names or it from the ethnic minorities? Also, according to Christofo Borri's Views of Seventeeth century Vietnam
 * "The shape of their faces is exactly like the Chinese, with flat noses, little eyes, but of an indifferent stature, not so small as the Japoneses, nor so tall as the Chineses. Yet, they are stronger and more active than either of them, and braver than the Chinese, but are out-done by the Japoneses in one thing, which is the contempt of life in dangers and battles"
 * If there were Khmer populations it would have been miniscule in comparison compared to the majority Vietnamese population. The Khmer name is already listed in Vietnam in its background subheading, Cochinchina is known and refers to what the Portugese and later, the French, see of South Vietnam consisting of the Vietnamese people. The "china" part of it is because the Vietnamese wore clothes similar to Qing clothing, but that isn't to be confused with actual Chinese people. Since this is going to get in circles, I will just leave it.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Cochinchina


text:
Talk:Chandanayika

Untitled

 * The description appears to be incorrect, actually "Chandanayika" is one of various forms of Devi Durga:

(http://www3.sympatico.ca/chartreuse/AvatarsOfTheGoddess/IndiaC.htm)

And, hence Chandanayika is

 * A Hindu goddess. A form of Durgha and one of the nine navadurgas.

 * A form of the goddess Durgha.

Accordingly, the contents should be rewritten, which I am going to do after collecting more materials. However, I feel the article may be merged with article Durga. Let us think over this.--Bhadani 15:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chandanayika


text:
2003 Australian Open

The 2003 Australian Open was a tennis tournament held in 2003. It was the first Grand Slam event of the 2003 ATP Tour and the 2003 WTA Tour. It was the 91st edition of the event and attracted 512,225 spectators.

Thomas Johansson could not defend his 2002 title due to an injury which would rule him out for all of 2003. Jennifer Capriati was unsuccessful in her title defence, being defeated in the first round by German Marlene Weingärtner. Andre Agassi won his fourth Australian Open and final Grand Slam title, defeating Rainer Schüttler in a lopsided final. Serena Williams defeated her sister Venus in the final in three sets, to win her fourth consecutive Grand Slam title to hold all four Grand Slam titles at once.

Men's singles
🇺🇸 Andre Agassi defeated 🇩🇪 Rainer Schüttler, 6–2, 6–2, 6–1
 * It was Agassi's 8th (and last) career Grand Slam title, and his 4th Australian Open title (an Open Era record until it was broken by Novak Djokovic in 2015).

Women's singles
🇺🇸 Serena Williams defeated 🇺🇸 Venus Williams, 7–6(7–4), 3–6, 6–4
 * It was Serena's 5th career Grand Slam title, her 4th in a row, and her 1st Australian Open title. this also marks Serena claiming a Career Grand Slam and first of two Serena Slams.

Men's doubles
🇫🇷 Michaël Llodra / 🇫🇷 Fabrice Santoro defeated Mark Knowles / 🇨🇦 Daniel Nestor, 6–4, 3–6, 6–3

Women's doubles
🇺🇸 Serena Williams / 🇺🇸 Venus Williams defeated 🇪🇸 Virginia Ruano Pascual / 🇦🇷 Paola Suárez, 4–6, 6–4, 6–3

Mixed doubles
🇺🇸 Martina Navratilova / 🇮🇳 Leander Paes defeated Eleni Daniilidou / 🇦🇺 Todd Woodbridge, 6–4, 7–5

Boys' singles
🇨🇾 Marcos Baghdatis def. Florin Mergea, 6–4, 6–4

Girls' singles
🇨🇿 Barbora Strýcová defeated 🇺🇦 Viktoriya Kutuzova, 0–6, 6–2, 6–2

Boys' doubles
🇺🇸 Scott Oudsema / 🇺🇸 Phillip Simmonds defeated Florin Mergea /  Horia Tecău, 6–4, 6–4

Girls' doubles
🇦🇺 Casey Dellacqua / 🇦🇺 Adriana Szili defeated 🇨🇿 Petra Cetkovská / 🇨🇿 Barbora Strýcová, 6–3, 4–4, ret.

Men's wheelchair singles
🇦🇺 David Hall defeated Robin Ammerlaan, 6–1, 7-6

Women's wheelchair singles
Esther Vergeer defeated 🇦🇺 Daniela Di Toro, 2–6, 6–0, 6-3

Seeds
Withdrawn players: 🇬🇧 Tim Henman, 🇩🇪 Tommy Haas, 🇸🇪 Thomas Johansson, Marcelo Ríos, 🇬🇧 Greg Rusedski, 🇫🇷 Paul-Henri Mathieu, 🇫🇷 Arnaud Clément;  Martina Hingis, 🇫🇷 Amélie Mauresmo,  Jelena Dokic.

Men's singles

 * 1) 🇦🇺 Lleyton Hewitt (fourth round, lost to Younes El Aynaoui)
 * 2) 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi (champion)
 * 3) 🇷🇺 Marat Safin (third round, withdrew before match against Rainer Schüttler)
 * 4) 🇪🇸 Juan Carlos Ferrero (quarterfinals, lost to Wayne Ferreira)
 * 5) 🇪🇸 Carlos Moyá (second round, lost to Mardy Fish)
 * 6) Roger Federer (fourth round, lost to David Nalbandian)
 * 7) 🇨🇿 Jiří Novák (third round, lost to Mikhail Youzhny)
 * 8) 🇪🇸 Albert Costa (third round, lost to Félix Mantilla)
 * 9) 🇺🇸 Andy Roddick (semifinals, lost to Rainer Schüttler)
 * 10) 🇦🇷 David Nalbandian (quarterfinals, lost to Rainer Schüttler)
 * 11) 🇹🇭 Paradorn Srichaphan (second round, lost to Mark Philippoussis)
 * 12) 🇫🇷 Sébastien Grosjean (quarterfinals, lost to Andre Agassi)
 * 13) Fernando González (second round, lost to Alberto Martín)
 * 14) 🇦🇷 Guillermo Cañas (second round, lost to Guillermo Coria)
 * 15) 🇪🇸 Àlex Corretja (first round, lost to Feliciano López)
 * 16) Sjeng Schalken (second round, lost to Mario Ančić)
 * 17) 🇦🇷 Gastón Gaudio (second round, lost to Sargis Sargsian)
 * 18) 🇲🇦 Younes El Aynaoui (quarterfinals, lost to Andy Roddick)
 * 19) 🇦🇷 Juan Ignacio Chela (second round, lost to Fernando Vicente)
 * 20) 🇧🇪 Xavier Malisse (third round, lost to David Nalbandian)
 * 21) 🇷🇴 Andrei Pavel (first round, lost to Renzo Furlan, retired)
 * 22) 🇷🇺 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (second round, lost to Jarkko Nieminen)
 * 23) 🇺🇸 James Blake (fourth round, lost to Rainer Schüttler)
 * 24) 🇪🇨 Nicolás Lapentti (third round, lost to Sébastien Grosjean)
 * 25) 🇷🇺 Mikhail Youzhny (fourth round, lost to Andy Roddick)
 * 26) 🇪🇸 Tommy Robredo (first round, lost to Wayne Ferreira)
 * 27) 🇺🇸 Jan-Michael Gambill (second round, lost to Félix Mantilla)
 * 28) 🇫🇷 Fabrice Santoro (third round, lost to Juan Carlos Ferrero)
 * 29) 🇫🇷 Nicolas Escudé (third round, lost to Andre Agassi)
 * 30) 🇧🇷 Gustavo Kuerten (second round, lost to Radek Štěpánek)
 * 31) 🇩🇪 Rainer Schüttler (final, lost to Andre Agassi)
 * 32) 🇦🇹 Stefan Koubek (first round, lost to Andreas Vinciguerra)

Women's singles

 * 1) 🇺🇸 Serena Williams (champion)
 * 2) 🇺🇸 Venus Williams ''(final, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 3) 🇺🇸 Jennifer Capriati ''(first round, lost to Marlene Weingärtner)
 * 4) 🇧🇪 Kim Clijsters ''(semifinals, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 5) 🇧🇪 Justine Henin-Hardenne ''(semifinals, lost to Venus Williams)
 * 6) 🇺🇸 Monica Seles ''(second round, lost to Klára Koukalová)
 * 7) 🇸🇰 Daniela Hantuchová ''(quarterfinals, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 8) 🇷🇺 Anastasia Myskina ''(quarterfinals, lost to Kim Clijsters)
 * 9) 🇺🇸 Lindsay Davenport ''(fourth round, lost to Justine Henin-Hardenne)
 * 10) 🇺🇸 Chanda Rubin ''(fourth round, lost to Anastasia Myskina)
 * 11) 🇧🇬 Magdalena Maleeva ''(third round, lost to Elena Bovina)
 * 12) Patty Schnyder ''(fourth round, lost to Daniela Hantuchová)
 * 13) 🇮🇹 Silvia Farina Elia ''(second round, lost to Nicole Pratt)
 * 14) 🇮🇱 Anna Smashnova ''(third round, lost to Amanda Coetzer)
 * 15) 🇺🇸 Alexandra Stevenson ''(second round, lost to Denisa Chládková)
 * 16) 🇫🇷 Nathalie Dechy ''(third round, lost to Eleni Daniilidou)
 * 17) 🇷🇺 Elena Dementieva ''(first round, lost to Barbara Schwartz)
 * 18) Eleni Daniilidou ''(fourth round, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 19) Amanda Coetzer ''(fourth round, lost to Kim Clijsters)
 * 20) 🇷🇺 Elena Bovina ''(fourth round, lost to Meghann Shaughnessy)
 * 21) 🇯🇵 Ai Sugiyama ''(second round, lost to Nadia Petrova)
 * 22) 🇱🇺 Anne Kremer ''(second round, lost to Evie Dominikovic)
 * 23) 🇦🇷 Paola Suárez ''(third round, lost to Nicole Pratt)
 * 24) 🇷🇺 Tatiana Panova ''(third round, lost to Lindsay Davenport)
 * 25) 🇺🇸 Meghann Shaughnessy ''(quarterfinals, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 26) 🇹🇭 Tamarine Tanasugarn ''(third round, lost to Serena Williams)
 * 27) 🇺🇸 Lisa Raymond ''(second round, lost to Anca Barna)
 * 28) 🇦🇷 Clarisa Fernández ''(third round, lost to Anastasia Myskina)
 * 29) Iva Majoli ''(first round, lost to Cristina Torrens Valero)
 * 30) 🇸🇰 Janette Husárová ''(second round, lost to Virginia Ruano Pascual)
 * 31) 🇪🇸 Conchita Martínez ''(first round, lost to Amy Frazier)
 * 32) Katarina Srebotnik ''(third round, lost to Justine Henin-Hardenne)

title: 2003 Australian Open


text:
Talk:Edgar Ansel Mowrer

Untitled
What are these sentences supposed to mean?

"The German people however knew that Russia had been subject to German invasion after her defeat whereas in 1918 German soldiery were everywhere placed on foreign soil when its commanders petitioned for peace."

"Germany was prey to continuous partisan and political Insurrection as well as pressure from Belgium and France."

"A new army and the Radical Right combined and fought against Poles, Communists and Left Socialists and against the self-same new Weimar Republic."

The following is incorrect:

"In result the unrepentant nationalists created the legend that an undefeated Germany had been felled by a revolutionary dagger thrust at home."

No, leading military figures invented the "dagger thrust legend" immediately after the war, when they were questioned on the responsibility for the defeat. No need for partisan attacks, of which I never heard of. Str1977 15:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

These are Mowrer views, minimally trans-iterated  to avoid copyright. I put up this article to avoid nation based, political and faith-based POV /NPOV which was sullying the wikiP. I do not intend here to have to defend these views of Mowrer's and fight for every inch. why don't you get real and actually face the questions, face that book  Kenny alluded to, add helpful  rather than hindering comment on pages. I note you are still carrying on your efforts to minimise all this scandal and to prevent any advance. Which is of itself interesting.

If you wish to censor history I think you succeed quite well, but Mowrer's views are his own , and  are as I say Witness POV. it makes it difficult that you say you are not a specialist or knowledgeable about the Concordat events, but that does not stop you from wielding your mental axe. Would'nt it be wonderful to have you on the other side, what is still called the side of the angels. Fiamekeeper 12:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I never wished to censor history, but only focus discussion and avoid slander. I'm not a specialist in these particular events in all detail, but I am a historian. I sincerely hope I am on the side of the the angels, but how about you? As for my post above: I just asked questions about sentence I did not understand and/or which seemed a bit doubtful. If what you wrote is EAM's portrayal of the "dagger thrust" your post is o.k. - then the error lies with EAM. Str1977 16:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Purpose is to discredit Mowrer-of course. Logical .Fiamekeeper 18:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Dagger Thrust
Oh FK, you are seeing ghosts lurking everywhere, don't you?

(Though I probably could have put it clearer)

Purpose was to clarify that I think the sentence in question, in the way it was written in the entry, wrong. Here is the sentence as it stands:

"Germany was prey to continuous partisan and political Insurrection as well as pressure from Belgium and France. In result the unrepentant nationalists created the legend that an undefeated Germany had been felled by a revolutionary dagger thrust at home."

Now the thing is, that Hindenburg and Ludendorff created the "dagger thrust" legend not for the reasons given above. The were questioned by a parliamentary comitee and probably tried to wash the odium of defeat off themselves. After all, that was the reason for Ludendorff resigning from office late in the war, the reason for leaving the signing of the armistice to the new, parliamentary government. Also, politically Ludendorff definitely had an interest to blame the defeat on the Republic.

Now, these are the facts, at least as far as I know them.

They are in conflict with the given sentence.

This is either due to you misreading Mowrer or Mowrer getting the facts mixed up in some way.

I don't know.

You know the author - and his book. I don't. I suggest you check this again.

If it is the author's mistake, the thing can stay in there, though maybe with a disclaimer (or forms like Mowrer reports - I guess that's what the entry should be about, not Hindenburg (note the hint)).

Anyway, no reason to make such a fuss and speculate about my motives.

PS: I don't use talk pages to discredit anyone, let alone people I don't know. Others might. I don't.

Str1977 18:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * On another of our battle sectors you do, naming John Cornwell and suggesting a downer on Mowrer. You may be right to partake of the concerted world-wide attack on Cornwell's historical and personal  integrity, and you may or may not share in the essentially Catholic revisionist analysis of his work in the Vatican Archives -all I can say is what I see you knocking out . What particularly irks you is my backing up Cornwell from a completely new direction. Its a bore repairing the WP-everywhere there are sentences which are just faintly non-English in both text and thought  . I refer you to the Appeasement page and supposed coverage of Versailles etc. The thinking there seems to me to be not only German , but contemporary poltically revised , German . And the reason could be no more  than that  welcome exuberance of the German academia towards the English WP as well as the Deutsch WP.

 * As far as is easily apparent in cyberspace, Cornwell is attacked for one or several minor mistakes , very loudly . He is viciously discredited for what appear to be minor and meaningless , perhaps , editorial confusions.

 * EAM was a journalist and writes for maximum impact to a maximum audience . Indeed I shall check his exact words and I shall indeed substitute back an original quote . Keep watching and, understanding this to be a both contemporary journalism as well as his , EAM's , hindsight , let's see if it does not achieve the illumination  EAM sought to provide  . He is hard bitten and pulls no punches and the world needs  such .  Yes , lets co-operate.

 * Dagger text = ".............German reactions, both individual and collective, [seemed] sui generis.

 * Which was exactly what many Germans felt themselves to be, especially after their still unimaginable defeat in 1918 . To them the years of disappointment, trial and never-ending crisis seemed like a lunatic's dream.

 * In 1918 the military leaders who had, to the last ,fed the Germans a diet of victory talk , suddenly ordered them to overthrow the august House of Hohenzollern and create a republic which few of them wanted.

 * Most expected a 'negotiated settlement' and instead found themselves facing at Versailles a diktat on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, long after any possibility of their reopening hostilities  had disappeared .That this diktat was less severe than than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , which they themselves had imposed on Russia the previous year ,meant little . For Russia had been defeated  and physically invaded while germany had sued for peace while its soldiers were still everywhere on foreign soil . Unlike Wilson , Kaiser Wilhelm  had never talked of a peace without victors or vanquished ....How compare the two treaties ?

 * As if military defeat, with the loss of over six million in killed and wounded , was not bad enough , a people with a mania for "quiet and order" found themselves to years of bloody insurrections,unceasing disturbance, and pressure from France and Belgium.

 * As a result, unrepentant nationalists successfully launched the legend that unbeaten Germany was betrayed by a revolutionary "dagger thrust" at home . This encouraged Right radicals and the "new" Army to organise armed bands which fought not only Poles , Communists , and left Socialists but against the new Republic as well . In fact Oswald Spengler, that strange hybrid of historical seer and German jingo , had already announced that the Weimar Constitution was doomed . "

Famekeeper 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Split
This article should be mainly about Edgar Ansel Mowrer, not 90% filled by a discussion about a book he wrote. Intangible 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. This article was created by a user, now banned for his disruptive behaviour, to prove a point. I don't think the book is that well known that we actually need an article on the book or a presentation chapter by chapter of its contents. Even the user in question hasn't persisted in this project. Above you can see how he refused to answer questions on this. Str1977 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism in article
The exact phrase about the reported looking under the patina. Is either word for word a copy of Erik Lawsons book on US diplomat Dodd. Or both authors plagiarized from the same source. Wording should be change or source cited on subjects time in Nazi Germany. Meemsworldwide (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edgar Ansel Mowrer


text: Talk:Biryu of Baekje

title: Talk:Biryu of Baekje


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas bosboom

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted, exact copy already exists at user page. - SimonP 03:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas bosboom
Soley self promotion, content should be moved to user page, and this article deleted. UkPaolo 15:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy--Sophitus 18:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Etacar11 00:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Jerk It Out

"Jerk It Out" is a song by Swedish rock band Caesars. It was released in 2002 (when the band was known as Caesars Palace) as the lead single from their album Love for the Streets; it is also featured on the follow-up Paper Tigers in remixed form. The song was an international success following a re-release in 2005, reaching number eight on the UK Singles Chart and peaking at number 70 on the US Billboard Hot 100.

Chart performance
The song was first released for radio airplay in Sweden in early 2002 and reached number 32 in Sweden at the start of April. The following year, the song made an appearance on the UK Singles Chart, at number 60. It was re-released on 8 April 2005 as a maxi-CD single, and appeared on the band's album of that year, Paper Tigers. The re-release peaked at number eight on the UK Singles Chart, number 70 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number 19 on the Billboard Dance/Mix Show Airplay chart.

2002–2003
Swedish CD single
 * 1) "Jerk It Out"
 * 2) "Crazy Chick"
 * 3) "Can't Feel My Toes"
 * 4) "Junebug"

UK 7-inch single
 * A. "Jerk It Out"
 * B. "The Cannibals"

UK CD single
 * 1) "Jerk It Out"
 * 2) "Out of My Hands"
 * 3) "She's a Planet"

2005
UK and European CD single
 * 1) "Jerk It Out"
 * 2) "The Longer We Stay Together"

UK 7-inch single
 * A. "Jerk It Out" – 3:15
 * B. "Up All Night" – 3:30

Australian CD single
 * 1) "Jerk It Out"
 * 2) "Jerk It Out" (New Brauer mix)
 * 3) "The Longer We Stay Together"

Use in media
The song's appearance on charts was helped by prolific use in mid-2000s media, including commercials for the iPod Shuffle, Mobiltel, Nivea, Coca-Cola (in South Africa and Indonesia) as well as a 2009 Renault Mégane spot. Furthermore, it was used in the video games Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova (arcade and PlayStation 2 versions), FIFA Football 2004, FIFA 23, Just Dance, LMA Manager, Rock Band 3 (as downloadable content), Samba de Amigo (downloadable content for the Wii version) and SSX 3.

The song was part of the soundtrack of many films, including The Benchwarmers; Captivity; Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo; Fun with Dick and Jane; and Yours, Mine and Ours. It featured in trailers for Knight and Day, The Pink Panther and Garfield Gets Real, while the remix of the song was used in the trailer for Clerks II.

The song was used in the car sketch in the Eddsworld short "Random Bits".

The song was included in the TV series Dawson's Creek, the CBS series Cold Case, the NBC series Las Vegas, the HBO series Entourage, NCIS, and the British series Teachers.

In 2017, it was sampled by rapper Tiggs Da Author in his song "Work It Out".

In 2020, the song was used to introduce the character Dani Rojas in episode 6 of the TV series Ted Lasso.

title: Jerk It Out


text:
Pontifical College Josephinum

The Pontifical College Josephinum is a Roman Catholic seminary and private university in Columbus, Ohio. It was founded by Joseph Jessing in 1888 and was granted the status of a Pontifical College in 1892 by Pope Leo XIII, making it the only pontifical seminary in North America. Although the college is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), the HLC placed the institution on probation in 2022 for issues including problems in strategic planning, internal leadership structures, and declining enrollment, while the ATS gave a warning for problems in planning.

Background and foundation
Joseph Jessing emigrated from Germany to the United States in 1867, was ordained to the priesthood in 1870, and assigned to Sacred Heart Church in Pomeroy. Within his first year at Sacred Heart, the parish purchased a house next door to serve as an orphanage for twelve local boys, supported in part by a German-language newspaper that Jessing wrote. The newspaper and orphanage, known as the St. Joseph Orphan Asylum, grew so rapidly that five years later, in 1876, Jessing moved both the orphanage and the printing operations of the Waisenfreund to Columbus for greater railroad access. The facility, located at the intersection of Main and Seventeenth Streets in Columbus gave both a Catholic education and training in the trades to the young men in its care.

In October 1888, prompted both by the desire of some of the orphan boys to study for the priesthood and the need of German-speaking Catholics to be ministered to by German-speaking priests, Jessing founded the Collegium Josephinum, and its first class of 23 men began formation at the Columbus site.

As those first students progressed through the seminary program, the institution initially provided six years of primary education ("minor seminary," four years of high school and two years of college/pre-theology) and six years of secondary seminary education ("major seminary," another two years of college/pre-theology and four years of theology/ seminary). Father Jessing lived to see the first class of six seminarians ordained to the priesthood in June 1899 but he died less than six months later in November of that same year.

Pontifical status
To make sure that the fledgling institution would continue after his death, Father Jessing asked that it be placed under the protection of the Holy See. Pope Leo XIII granted the request in 1892, thus making the new institution, the Pontifical College Josephinum, the only pontifical seminary outside of Italy. From that time to the present, the institution has been under the direction of the Congregation for Catholic Education, with the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States as its Chancellor. The college is governed by a board of trustees.

Relocation to present campus
In 1931, the Josephinum moved to its present location just north of Worthington, Ohio and 11 mi north of downtown Columbus on a landmark 100 acre campus. (The current size of the campus is slightly less than 97.5 acre with another approximately 12 acre parcel close by.) The new complex was designed by architect Frank A. Ludewig and cost $1.5 million dollars to construct.

The academic structure of the seminary changed over time during the 1940s and 1950s from the "six-six" format to four years of high school, four years of college, and four years of theology/seminary (though the distinctions were gradual and unclear). Reflecting the German origins of its founder and its service to the German-speaking community, the seminary high school and college held almost all classes in German until the influx of non-German speaking students made this no longer practical. The first official college commencement occurred in June 1953; the college and recreation buildings were dedicated in 1958; and the high school closed in 1967 due to a decline in the number of applicants.

For the first few decades of its existence, the seminary focused its work on educating priests to work with the large population of German immigrants in the United States. The Josephinum was incorporated in Ohio in 1894; its Constitution was first approved by Pope Pius XI in 1938 and was most recently revised and approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education in 1996.

Modernization and increasing international focus
In the years after World War I, the focus of the seminary shifted away from its original mission of meeting the spiritual needs of German-speaking Catholics to a wider mission of preparing priests for dioceses throughout the United States that lacked their own seminary. With the advent of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, the Church took on a more outward-looking and evangelical orientation. It was only natural that seminaries like The Josephinum also become increasingly involved in outreach and ministry work in their local communities. This trend continues today, along with many other initiatives.

Steven P. Beseau assumed leadership of the Pontifical College Josephinum on October 1, 2019. Josephinum alumni serve the Church in 48 states and 22 foreign countries. The Josephinum continues to prepare priests for U.S. dioceses that do not have their own seminaries, missionary areas of the United States, including regions of the U.S. with growing Hispanic communities and finally, dioceses around the world in need of help with the education of their seminarians.

List of Rectors

 * Joseph Jessing (1888–1899)
 * John J. Soentgerath (1900–1919)
 * Joseph Och (1919–1932)
 * Henry J. Grimmelsman (1932–1944)
 * Adrian F. Brandehoff (1945–1952)
 * Paul A. Gieringer (1952–1962)
 * Ralph A. Thompson (1962–1967)
 * Thomas P. Campbell (1967–1974)
 * Frank A. Mouch (1974–1984)
 * Dennis F.  Sheehan (1986–1989)
 * Blase J. Cupich (1989–1996)
 * Thomas J. Olmsted (1997–1999)
 * Earl A. Boyea (2000–2002)
 * Paul J. Langsfeld (2003–2009)
 * James A. Wehner (2009–2012)
 * Christopher J. Schreck (2012–2019)
 * Steven P. Beseau (2019–present)

Accreditation and certifications
Led by a decades long effort by its most significant graduate and 20th century leader, Leonard J. Fick, the Josephinum was accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), an affiliate of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools in 1976. The Josephinum has been accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS) since 1970. The seminary also holds a Certificate of Authorization from the Ohio Board of Regents.

In March 2022, the ATS issued a warning to the institution, as did the HLC in June of the same year. Issues include problems in strategic planning, internal leadership structures, and declining enrollment in the college.

title: Pontifical College Josephinum


text:
Neosalvarsan

Neosalvarsan is a synthetic chemotherapeutic that is an organoarsenic compound. It became available in 1912 and superseded the more toxic and less water-soluble salvarsan as an effective treatment for syphilis. Because both of these arsenicals carried considerable risk of side effects, they were replaced for this indication by penicillin in the 1940s.

Both salvarsan and neosalvarsan were developed in the laboratory of Paul Ehrlich in Frankfurt, Germany. Their discoveries were the result of the first organized team effort to optimize the biological activity of a lead compound through systematic chemical modifications. This scheme is the basis for most modern pharmaceutical research. Both salvarsan and neosalvarsan are prodrugs – that is, they are metabolised into the active drug in the body.

Although, like salvarsan, it was originally believed to contain an arsenic-arsenic double bond, this is now known to be incorrect for Salvarsan. Presumably, neosalvarsan also exists as a mixture of differently sized rings with arsenic-arsenic single bonds.

title: Neosalvarsan