Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 12 August 2008

D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - - and in nl:GTL8 on 3 & 4 by , as: of HGA - in Den Haag. For QED see: or , and besides → plus: Bibliografie.

• Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (86.83.155.44) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --SSBohio 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

IQ	This user's Intelligence Quotient was roughly between 160 and 170.

Sysyphus: Ummagumma Поклонник +> Pink Floyd

This user knows that there is no dark side of the moon really — matter of fact it's all dark.

Template:User Animals Template:User The Wall Template:User Wish You Were Here

This user is a fan of Genesis in all of its forms. Supper's Ready!

This user wants everyone to know that the Collectors (album) is never been classified as Caravan (album)

Regarding your edits to Light rail:

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

• Stale From the list of town tramway systems with two book references:
  

Gragt, Frits van der. - 1968. "Europe's Greatest Tramway Network" (No ISBN). Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Borgdorff, Ing. D. A., and Dr. H. D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) - 2000. "HTM Light Rail Vehicle GTL8" (ISBN 90-9013935-4). The Hague, Netherlands: Association HTV.

• For Norwegia see User talk page: no:Brukerdiskusjon:86.83.155.44
• For Spanish see User talk page: es:Usuario Discusión:86.83.155.44
• For Catalonia see User talk page: ca:Usuari Discussió:86.83.155.44
• For Portugal see User talk page: pt:Usuário Discussão:86.83.155.44
• For Basque see also User page: eu:Lankide Eztabaida:86.83.155.44
• For France see User talk page: fr:Discussion Utilisateur:86.83.155.44
• For Finland see User talk page: fi:Keskustelu Käyttäjästä:86.83.155.44
• For Romania see User talk page too: ro:Discuţie Utilizator:86.83.155.44
• Multi Famam Conscientiam Pauci Verentur. Ut Sementum Feceris Ita Metes. Ora Et Labora. Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit. Virtute Nil Præstantius Nil Pulchrius. Omnia Vincit Amor. Præclarum Quidam Veritas. - dAb - FRIEN.

PS: Ich bin ehemalig Haupt-Entwerfer der de:Straßenbahn Den Haag - Ingenieur de:Quantenelektrodynamik und de:Leistungselektronik = VDE: 546934 & 28878 - VDI: 19958957 - KIVI/NIRIA: 6638 - COITI: 1940. Immer Achtung: 86.83.155.44

• Id (bijvoorbeeld ISBN-nummer) Status Boektitel Auteur Gebieden

ISBN 9789080586512 Register en Beknopte Genealogie Borgdorff - Borgdorff, D.A. ISBN 9789080586529 Materiële en Gravitationele Elektromagnetische Energie - Vallée, René-Louis - Borgdorff, D.A. (ed.) \\// ISBN 9789080586536 Parenteel van Andreas Borgdorff (geboren in 1702) - Borgdorff, Dorus André - (m.m.v.) Borgdorff, Jan

Van der Pol oscillator

D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). For QED see: or , and - PS: de niet-lineair systeem Van der Pol relaxatie-vergelijking is hier op wikipedia onvindbaar, dus bij de engelse voor zo'n groot Nederlander als volgt te lezen:

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

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

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

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

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

Gelukkig dat wetenschap, logica, zindelijk denken, en gezond verstand onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn. Thomass 7 mrt 2008 22:48 (CET) Nogmaals mijn grote waardering. → & •

PS: Relevante links: http://www.ovcentraal.nl/nederland/tram.php.

Van ir. J.W. Sluiter overzicht Spoor & Tramwegen: ISBN 90-5345-224-9

Oud elektrodynamisch hoofdontwikkelaar-ingenieur dubbelgeleed HTM GTL8-trammaterieel: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 11:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References

• Besides QED → and for tubes: and
• Volgens de meestal gebruikte formule om beslissingen te creëren, uitgaande van het morfogenetische veld: ${\displaystyle x_{n+1}=A\,x_{n}\,(\mathrm {mod} \,M)\,}$. O/A.: -
• Dit is ook te zien aan de Schrödinger-operatoren in de plaats-ruimte:

${\displaystyle (xp-px)\psi =x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}(x\psi )=x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}\psi -x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi =i\hbar \psi }$.

Deze formule laat onomstotelijk zien, dat wij niet alles mogen begrijpen, daar de belangrijkste parameters niet in bra-kets zijn getransformeerd, welke voor de zon in onzeker sneeuwwit licht zouden veranderen.

• Een en ander berust op het onzekerheidsprincipe van Heisenberg.

About the 'De Broglie wavelength' equations

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

The problem with your math is at ${\displaystyle pc=mc^{2}}$. I assume you got at it by setting ${\displaystyle E=pc}$ equal to ${\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}$, but the first is the total energy of a massless particle, the second the total energy of a massive particle at rest.

Part of what was so unexpected about de Broglie's hypothesis was that he took equations for a massless particle and played with them until found something new that's true for massive particles. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work that way. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For a particle with non-zero rest mass, when its momentum is zero relative to an inertial frame of reference, we find that

${\displaystyle E=m_{0}c^{2}}$

Where E is the total energy, ${\displaystyle m_{0}}$is the rest mass of the particle, c is the speed of light in vacuum. When it possesses momentum in the same frame,

${\displaystyle E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}}$${\displaystyle =\gamma m_{0}c^{2}}$

${\displaystyle p=\gamma m_{0}v}$

${\displaystyle \gamma =\;{\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}}$

When v=0, ${\displaystyle \gamma }$=1,

${\displaystyle E=m_{0}\;c^{2}}$ Classically, we define momentum as a product of mass and velocity. We can still use this definition. However,mass of a particular body is no longer a constant but is frame-dependent and is a function of its velocity. Whatever frame it is, its rest mass will be the same. Therefore, many or most scientists today would like to regard rest mass is the only definition of mass because variable mass may lead to a confusion. For me, I would still use both frame-dependent mass and invariant mass. In my maths, m always means relativistic mass. I will use ${\displaystyle m_{0}}$ denotes rest mass. Therefore,

${\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}$

${\displaystyle E_{k}\;=(m-m_{0})c^{2}=(\gamma -1)m_{0}\;c^{2}}$

Where ${\displaystyle E_{k}}$ denotes kinetic energy. For a particle with zero rest mass such as photon, its kinetic energy is ill-defined. The expression ${\displaystyle E=mc^{2}}$ is different from ${\displaystyle E_{0}\;=m_{0}\;c^{2}}$ where ${\displaystyle E_{0}}$ is a particle rest energy. I use E to denotes total energy. Wherever there's energy, there's always a certain amount of mass associate with it, though there may not be the rest energy. Certainly, photon has zero rest mass. It carries both momentum and energy.

${\displaystyle p=mc}$

${\displaystyle E=hf=mc^{2}=pc}$

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

${\displaystyle E=pc}$

Therefore, the derivation of De Broglie is correct with his own postulate. He postulated that all body with non-zero rest mass also have wave-particle duality in nature just as photon does. He personally thinks that nature seems to love symmetry. Now, we discover that there is a violation of symmetery in weak interaction.

Thljcl 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

${\displaystyle E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}}$,

which you state above, clearly has no dependence on rest mass ${\displaystyle m_{0}}$, as you previously asserted. Dchristle 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Transposed replications

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

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

Estimable Sir; I'm sorry to disturb you again, but yet an other block up now from mrs. Moira came unexpectedly after my complaints being thrown on a sort of blacklist by abovementioned CEO. I've tried to reach the - by mr. De Roo recommended - IRC-channel, but my typed reaction unfortunately didn't came through and I was even banned there after accusation of lurking while trying to contact for explanation again and again and onwards. So I'll have to report it here again with - in the mean time - utmost amazement, wondering about the level of arguments affected in numbers. With best regards I again remain sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff from number IP: 86.83.155.44 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear mr. Borgdorff, I already discussed your last block on wiki.nl with mrs. Moira. I am afraid she was rather uncompromisable in the matter, due to the large amount of what she and others call "useless edits" from your side. Fact is that anonimous edits have to be checked on wikipedia, and that's not very entertaining work I can assure. So I would like to suggest that you stop editing talk pages and start editing articles; or just open an account so that your edits don't bother the team that checks anonimous edits any longer.

When somebody does not show his or her name at the chat that is considered "lurking" and unpolite, because others are having confidential talk there and do show their names. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that you were "booted" from the chat.

I hope you will at least think about opening a real account because it will make life easier for everyone! Kind regards and yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: For message Mwpnl, see under blocking mediation. — D.A. Borgdorff - Electrodynamics & Power Electronics. — 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The nature of mass as a vortex of space-time

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

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

Temporary translocation

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

Retrospection to blocking mediation

Beste Bob, nu maar even in het Nederlands: bedankt voor uw ondersteuning. Door al die rare acties wordt ik nu zelfs verdacht uit onverdachte hoek. Waar gaat dit in vredesnaam nog over.? Hoe kun je nu nog representatief en rustig werken bij voortdurende verdenkingen of verdachtmaking met blokkades, die het schrijven en bijhorende discussies als met Mdd of Tom blijven verstoren. Ik moet me maar telkenmale -- als ware ik crimineel -- blijven verantwoorden en daar heb ik géén zin en tijd meer voor. Als dat huidige blok niet snel wordt opgeheven, zal ik me moeten beraden op andere stappen wegens bijv. laster en andere overtredingen van recent bekend gemaakte internetverplichtingen. Vorenstaande doelt slechts op geconstateerde feiten. Alsnog hartelijke groet in hoge achting: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bob, because you have not reacted to above requests to abolish the blocking in direction with involved administrators,.. I deleted the last part of my objections, and will continue to proceed -- but for the fact of duration of time too long. With best regards, D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - etc. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Since I do not appreciate my full name being available on Misplaced Pages I removed it. Everyone can look up my real name on the internet, it's not that hard to find. This however, does not mean that I want it published, with a link to my photograph, without my permission and knowledge. Mwpnl (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak auxiliaries

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

Die nuwegnominatie kun je vergeten, het is in principe not done om artikelen uit andermans gebruikersnaamruimte te nomineren voor verwijdering. Josq 25 jan 2008 15:55 (CET)

Seguir el pulso

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

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

Cfr.: Colleagues = Celloman - Rikipedia - Lidewij - Balko - Art - Edo - Sonty - Koolstra - Londenp - Richardkiwi - Diogenes - Itsme - Drirpeter - Mastertim -Tûkkã - B.Dijkstra - WDV - Wikix - Mtthshksm - Erik Warmelink - JAM. → Regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking probably being supposed to must have so to be stopped definitely in this continuously handling of matters regarding my person. Unfortunately: in the moment can't see it differently. Esteemed regards with thanks again. As usual: D.A. Borgdorff - from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear dAb, we're still trying to get rid of that ridiculous block... don't loose faith too soon. Regards, sincerely, DTBone (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Monopole Maxwell's equations

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism relate the electric and magnetic fields to the motions of electric charges. The standard form of the equations provide for an electric charge, but posit no magnetic charge. Except for this, the equations are symmetric under interchange of electric and magnetic field. The fact that the electric and magnetic fields can be written in a symmetric way is specific to the fact that space is three-dimensional. When the equations of electromagnetism are extrapolated to other dimensions, the magnetic field is described as a rank 2 antisymmetric tensor, while the electric field remains a true vector. In dimensions other than 3, these two objects do not have the same number of components. In fact, symmetric equations can be written when all charges are zero, and this is how the wave equation is derived.

Fully symmetric equations can also be written if one allows for the possibility of "magnetic charges" analogous to electric charges. With the inclusion of a variable for these magnetic charges, say ${\displaystyle \ \rho _{m}}$, there will also be a "magnetic current" variable in the equations, ${\displaystyle \ \mathbf {j} _{m}}$. The extended Maxwell's equations are as follows, in cgs units:

Name	Without Magnetic Monopoles	With Magnetic Monopoles
Gauss's law:	${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}}$	${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}}$
Gauss' law for magnetism:	${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0}$	${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =4\pi \rho _{m}}$
Faraday's law of induction:	${\displaystyle -\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}}$	${\displaystyle -\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{m}}$
Ampère's law (with Maxwell's extension):	${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}}$	${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}}$
Note: For the equations in nondimensionalized form, remove the factors of c.

The Lorentz force becomes

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {B} \right)+q_{m}\left(\mathbf {B} -{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {E} \right)}$

In SI units, magnetic charge conventionally has units of T·m (although some authors use different conventions), See, for example: arXiv:physics, eqn (4), in which the unit of magnetic monopole differs by a factor of μ₀, compared to the version from Jackson 1999: Classical Electrodynamics (*) — used in this article, and Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law take the following form:

${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =\rho _{e}/\epsilon _{0}}$	${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =\rho _{m}}$
${\displaystyle -\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {j} _{m}}$	${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {B} =\mu _{0}\epsilon _{0}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+\mu _{0}\mathbf {j} _{e}}$
${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} \right)+(q_{m}/\mu _{0})\left(\mathbf {B} -\mathbf {v} \times (\mathbf {E} /c^{2})\right)}$

If magnetic charges do not exist, or if they exist but where they are not present in a region, then the new variables are zero, and the extended equations reduce to the conventional equations of electromagnetism such as ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0}$. Classically, the question is "Why does the magnetic charge always seem to be zero?"

• (*) Jackson 1999. For Maxwell's equations, see section 6.11, equation 6.150,

page 273. For the Lorentz force law, see page 290, exercise 6.17(a)

Transposed by D.A. Borgdorff ↔ 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

BF model field theory

The BF model is a topological field theory, which when quantized, becomes a topological quantum field theory. BF stands for background field. B and F, as can be seen below, are also the variables appearing in the Lagrangian of the theory, which is helpful as a mnemonic device.

We have a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold M, a gauge group G, which has as "dynamical" fields a two-form B taking values in the adjoint representation of G, and a connection form A for G.

The action is given by

${\displaystyle S=\int _{M}K}$

where K is an invariant nondegenerate bilinear form over ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {g}}}$ (if G is semisimple, the Killing form will do) and F is the curvature form

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} \equiv d\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {A} \wedge \mathbf {A} }$

This action is diffeomorphically invariant and gauge invariant. Its Euler-Lagrange equations are

${\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =0}$ (no curvature)

and

${\displaystyle d_{\mathbf {A} }B=0}$ (the covariant exterior derivative of B is zero).

In fact, it is always possible to gauge away any local degrees of freedom, which is why it is called a topological field theory.

However, if M is topologically nontrivial, A and B can have nontrivial solutions globally.

In- and external links

• Spin foam
• Background field method
• Quantum field theory

  

• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-fall2000/qg2.2.html

Duplicated by: D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

De Broglie's parodox

Quantum Mechanics considers the duality wave-particle through the interpretation proposed by de Broglie. The diffraction has been detected for the elementary particles, as electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules. Considering these experiments, we show here that there is a grave incompatibility between this solution of Quantum Mechanics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the light is replaced by protons, and Michelson’s interferometer replaced by a crystal.

• MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FOR PROTONS

When an electron crosses a crystal, it can suffer diffraction according to the Bragg’s relation, which is: nλ = 2.d. senφ ....

Davisson, Germer and Thomson made experiments with φ = 65 , d = 0,91Å , and electrons with kinetic energy 54eV.

Through the expression 2.1 we get: λ= 1,65 Å ....

The wavelength of de Broglie, for the electrons with energy 54eV used at the Davisson-Germer-Thomson experiment, is:

λ = h/p = 6,6x10-34j-s/4,0x10-24kg-m/s = 1,65 Å ....

Electrons with kinetic energy 54eV have approximately a speed 4.000km/s. As we see, the postulate of de Broglie gets the same result of the Bragg’s relation. According to the authors Robert Eisberg & Robert Resnick, the electron suffers diffraction into the crystal because “there is a constructive interference of waves spread by the periodic arrangement of the atoms in the planes of the crystal ”. So, this constructive interference is a consequence of: d=0,91Å within the crystal, and the electron’s speed 4.000km/s.

In the experiments of diffraction electrons are used with speed 4.000km/s. But instead of using electrons we can replace them by protons. As the proton has a mass 2.000 times greater than the electron, then de Broglie’s wavelength of a proton with speed 2km/s will be 1,65Å. Then let us imagine Michelson-Morley experiment, made with a proton with speed 32km/s.

We will consider the Sun as a reference at rest. And in order to simplify the explanation, let's consider that the Earth's translation velocity around the Sun is 30km/s. So the crystal in our laboratory has a speed of 30km/s with regard to the Sun. But the Bragg’s relation does not depend on the speed of the crystal, in order that through his relation we get the value λ=1,65Å.

Now let us submit the protons to the experiment, when they are emitted in two directions. Let us analyze the two different directions of the proton’s motion in the experiment.

Michelson-Morley experiment for protons:

1- First let us consider that the flux of protons is emitted with 32km/s in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s - 30km/s = 2km/s. So, by de Broglie’s relation we get a wavelength λ=1,65Å , and by the Bragg’s relation we also have λ=1,65Å. This means that the proton shall be submitted to the diffraction effect into the crystal, and we can detect the proton’s duality by the experiment.

2- Now consider the flux of protons emitted with 32km/s in the same direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s + 30km/s = 62km/s. Then, the proton has a de Broglie’s wavelength λ=1,65Å/31 = 0,055Å, while from the Bragg’s relation for the crystal λ=1,65Å. Therefore such proton cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal.

This is the result that we have to expect from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics. But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion. Clearly this experimental result does not fit to the concepts of Quantum Mechanics, as has been shown above. One can say that there is no paradox, because it is necessary to consider the velocity of the crystal with regard to the proton, i.e., actually it would be necessary to consider the relation λ= h/m(V-v), where V is the velocity of the proton, and v is the velocity of the crystal. With such argument, actually we are introducing the Doppler effect between the proton and the crystal. However such argument is valid only for pure waves, it is not valid for the de Broglie’s idea of duality. Let us show why.

Consider a proton with speed 30km/s. Its wavelength h/mv is λ= 0,11Å. And if we use a crystal with distance d= 0,06Å , from the Bragg’s relation we get λ= 0,11Å, and therefore in the laboratory we must detect the proton’s diffraction. This is the prediction according to de Broglie’s interpretation. But now consider that we make such experiment with the proton going in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Therefore, with regard to the Sun, the velocity of the proton is Vp= 0. In such experiment, the proton is at rest, while the crystal has a velocity Vc=30km/s toward the direction of the proton. Unmistakably the proton is stopped with regard to the Sun, and this means that it does not have wave feature. The proton with Vp= 0 is 100% corpuscular, and therefore it cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal. So, the de Broglie’s interpretation is wrong.

Obviously we have a paradox. The duality, according to the interpretation of de Broglie, is not compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment for protons. Let us call it Michelson-deBroglie Paradox. It shows that it is not correct the de Broglie's interpretation for the relation λ=h/p.

Instead of being a property of the matter, it's possible the duality wave-particle may be a property of the helical trajectory of elementary particles as the electrons. The helical trajectory is known as zitterbewegung, which appears in the Dirac's equation of the electron

From such new interpretation, the duality wave-particle is not a manifestation of the matter. Actually it's a property of the helical trajectory.

Signatures: 200.149.61.68 (talk) & 200.97.93.67 03:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some sources about this, including some that resolve it, see here. It might be sensible to add something to the article, as long as it's well rooted in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, the books quoted by you speak about OTHER DE BROGLIE'S PARADOX, as we see in ,

where it's written: "How can De' Broglie discover his famous relation between the particle's momentum and a wave length, a paradox stemming from the time dilatation effect of SR".

• Therefore the paradox quoted by you has not any relation to the de Broglie's paradox concerning the new version of Michelson's experiment, named Michelson-Morley experiment for protons.
• Actually there is not any solution proposed for this new de Broglie's paradox in any book, except in Quantum Ring Theory:

Ccfr: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For more discussion on this topic: User talk:DonJStevens & his UP too. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) by D.A. Borgdorff +>

See also: ru:user talk:86.83.155.44 → Луи де Бройль

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:De Broglie hypothesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. One more revert, and you will have reverted 4 times, and be subject to blocking. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It's not, but thank you for your appropiate information. → D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I see I didn't count the within-24-hours reverts correctly, so you're not quite as close as I thought. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on Vallée

Mr Borgdorff, there is now an article nl:René-Louis Vallée. If you are interested in contributing, feel free to put it on my talk page (disregard the message there), and I will put it in if it does not violate the principles of Misplaced Pages. Regards, Wammes Waggel (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately noticed that stub written by incompetent and unqualified editors who don't know enough of De Broglie's paradoxes and Vallée's work related apparently. So I'm not amused, certainly not while this started being blocked for too long. I'll take this interwiki attacks on my integrity (also by you) very seriously and resentfully, and complained about "it" already. Further, into the page user talk: Woodwalker, I have debated this matter too, and mentioned to stay aloof of its present content. First put those references back, and the banishments and blocks allover the world you created on metawiki instantly down and out. You have to understand who frequently asked some physicist for helping her out and was the originator of my disappeared article "Material Waves" on the 20th of May. Yours \ D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the edit from user dr. Paul B.

Unfortunately you are going on to disrupt the importance of the Hon. prof.ing. R.-L. Vallée, as well as my contributions of messenger interrelated to most works of De Broglie. This is still indignified upheaval ... of which I stay aloof from. Truly Yrs: \ dAb / +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of a suddenly blocking up from action by Robotje - while defending me - I'll have to (re)place the (un)finished text hereunder in España.wiki:

On the contrary: ¡ Don't take that very important reference away without discussion first.! You are nó more worth than any other user ...nl:G:dAb via —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:08 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → Post scriptum: the lie that in France is no article about Vallée is proved by fr:Synergie in paragraph Physique synergétique. Always, atentamente D.A. Borgdorff: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:35 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → PS: I also clearly stated that the work eruditely published from De Broglie's 'own' Masson & Cie on this topic of M° René-Louis Vallée - mi traslado incluido - had been "classified" by the Public French National State Atomic CEA ultimo 1974 for obvious reasons. Saludos Cordiales y Atte: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 11:14 5 jul 2008 (UTC)

Hoping someone been able to copy/paste insert this into the proper Spanish "equivalent" talkpage overthere ... Thanks in advance for your service. Obliged sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff still from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From the Swedish Wiki

• Halvlås artikel|sv:de Broglie-våglängd eftersom den irriterande holländska ingenjörn klottrare|86.83.155.44 D.A. Borgdorff envisas med att lägga in en referens till en obskyr artikel som han själv har översatt. Det handlar om crosswiki-spamming, och det har pågått i lång tid, på svwp sedan februari. - /Pieter Kuiper 3 juli 2008 kl. 08.11 (CEST)

Jag har halvlåst i tre månader till att börja med. MiCkE 3 juli 2008 kl. 08.40 (CEST)

Varför inte blockera användaren istället? \GhostRider♠ 3 juli 2008 kl. 10.26 (CEST)

Det kan man förstås göra, men det tycks vara ett dynamiskt ip-nummer så det räcker nog att stänga av adsl-modemet för att få ett nytt. MiCkE 3 juli 2008 kl. 10.30 (CEST)

OK. \GhostRider♠ 3 juli 2008 kl. 11.00 (CEST)

Jag tror att det har varit samma IP-nummer sedan januari, så man skulle kunna blockera det, som en del andra wikipedior redan gjort. /Pieter Kuiper 3 juli 2008 kl. 11.35 (CEST)

OK, jag har blockerat IP-nummret och låst upp sidan. Om användaren byter IP-nummer gå det an att låsa sidan senare. MiCkE 3 juli 2008 kl. 11.46 (CEST)

Conclusion: some strange manœuvres there in Sverige. \ dAb / = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC) from this user:Pieter Kuiper ...

Let me explain: they blocked you for a year for that silly reference you kept inserting. Not very strange, that. Wammes Waggel (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This user was blocked after a worldwde hunt on him, though his contributions are of value to all encyclopedias. btw: on the Swedish Wiki one of the stalkers was blocked already, and for good reasons (i.e. Erik Baas), and so should it be. When people start stalking, harrassing noble contributors like this IP user, there should be no consideration in blocking people who keep on stalking. btw: the inserted reference MAKES sense, mr. Waggel. Pity that you seem not to see the added value of this great reference to the encyclopedia.DTBone (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That was on the German wikipedia, not the Swedish one. Wammes Waggel (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Star

		The Original Barnstar
		For trying to get quality reliable high-standard articles into several Misplaced Pages projects. DTBone (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because elsewhere blocked up, so only able to reply here, I am much surprised to receiving these awards on more than one wiki. Very pleased for your kind and friendly words, that put new heart into research and writing onwards.
I will keep imperishable memories that way and wish you greatly blessed days in return the coming weeks.
Obliged with stumbling, I am faithfully yours D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Block of my Italian talkpage

You can push your POV elsewhere. Removing warnings and reverting edits from other administrators is considered vandalism on itwiki, that is not your talk page, it's a space that the italian community kindly allowed you to abuse for too long. --Brownout 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you don't read very well, because I didn't do anything at all you stated. Never, never "removed warnings or reverting admins edits" nor even pushing as you blamed and shamed my scientific integrity by POV. Though: regards: D.A. Borgdorff - i.e. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Dutch comments from Oscar

Oscar, I herewith want to let you know that alas I got rather irritated about some couples of reverting me last day (just out of my strange block before) while imho cleaning up the mess → from Others edited last month into my talkpage of NL. Disturbed again and again, during my attempts to get a better readable lay-out etc. As sharp seen by Lidewij et al. are those methods for infants in kindergarten, not for adult people like me. I still don't see better plausebility of your arguments given on my said page, nor the artificial connection you make between my (two) comments and the withdrawn PA from Celloman, of which all involved here made excuses for: me including too, but I could not properly react owing to your absurd letter renewal of blocking. As you ought to know I disliked all that sort of cabal = regarding some regimes (too) as you do. I only replaced the surrounding context in relation with the next sentence. - Mr. Baas on the contrary continually hindering my edits, is not so attacked, nor was your focus apparently directed towards me changing indentations, as was stated. All that sort of accusations are confussing, not only to me. I'll hope you to review your verdict, perhaps may it be soon, will it not again developing to totally unacceptable situations on several Misplaced Pages's. Meanwhile with kind regards. D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) and very sorry for not fluently writing English owing to circumstances. Ccfr. D.A. Borgdorff e.i. numbered: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Beste Oscar, daar u blijkbaar helaas niet op mijn bovenstaande – in tamelijk keurig Engels verwoorde – verzoek: om per ommegaande allerlei ongewenst geplaatste sjablonen weg te halen, en voorts de onterechte blokkades op te heffen, reageert ben ik helaas genoodzaakt me over deze ongewenste gang van zaken nader te (laten) beraden. Inmiddels verblijf ik, nog immer tot dienst bereid, met de meeste hoogachting. Na beleefde groet: (fdo) D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.i.c. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nor reason at all to threaten a dutch moderator here with possible legal actions. I find this despicable and below the belt. I trust my colleagues here will take action. For their informations - the sentence ben ik helaas genoodzaakt me over deze ongewenste gang van zaken nader te (laten) beraden. above means I feel urged to seek advice elsewhere about this unwanted course of events MoiraMoira (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Personal attack from MoiraMoira removed: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC) → is referred to page user talk:Oscar. This accusation on me continuously replaced by user:Erik Baas & Moira².

Here you = MoiraMoira - spoke about a threatening that not came from me, but instead from you now : with a bad translation, while I just was asking Oscar in Dutch why he didn't respond to my Engish message about those absurd blockings without motivation, besides from "hunting" by you c.s. culminating into threatenings to my sole addresses on several Wikipediae, even with any unjustified dangers attendant on me personally and my family name: Borgdorff, stated through a persistant impersonator, that you admins (still) don't want to delete or remove away. Conclusion: I'm even banned from meta-wiki, because I did complain there, as well as here on the helpdesk and known Foundation-members. Always Obliged: \ D.A. Borgdorff PEng E.E. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For the English mod-colleague reading this: the above statement " personal attack removed" is false and untrue. I did not place any personal attack here. This user is no contributor to any wiki version, but only continues with senseless edits only as well as accusing people of weird untrue facts. His IP-adress has been blocked on several wikipedia's in the mean time. I leave it up to you how to deal with the situation here, you can contact me on my Dutch talk page for further enlightement if so wished. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This just made statement is imho precisely a renewed PA as well.!. You on the contrary now again are nearly too clearly visible, constantly being to accusing me -- even around the globe -- just quite the reverse of your strange representation. For instance, in Holland you're the initiator of the "destruction" of said by me started article about "Material Waves" of De Broglie. Even the original copy reserved in my namespace there you are going to delete, nota bene while I am blocked for even reacting properly to defend myself. You should be ashamed of your intrigues: for admins ought to be an example for others, though.? I take this very much amiss, but probably intrinsic derived from your pseudonaming. Less regards but sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff - etc. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. —The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. Ccfr: Catch 22 - D.A. Borgdorff MASc PEng = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC) → For an Easy Rider to Get Your Kicks On Route 66. And in context from Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, which ... are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.

Warn

You're being disruptive at talk: WP:RFARB. Please stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now mr. Rlevese: about what? I solely repaired someone elses undoing - though? Regards and still be Yours: D.A. Borgdorff &c. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC) → Will you please WP:AGF?

My page: Utilisateur Discussion

• See also: it:Discussioni Utente:86.83.155.44 for the same prejudice or bias ...

Beste Moira, wilt U nu eindelijk eens mijn pagina's NIET vernielen, maar eens een voorbeeld van net gedrag geven, zoals het een goede symsteemontwikkelaar als moderator en administrator betaamt? Met collegiale groet van D.A. Borgdorff, e.i. via: 86.83.155.44 (d) 16 juillet 2008 à 11:46 (CEST) = Translated by dAb:
Dear Moira, will you finally one day NOT destroy my pages again, but once give an example of neatly behaviour, such as a good sysop decently being moderator and administrator either? With collegiate compliments from D.A. Borgdorff, PEng. via: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you don't "have" a talk page to misuse for link spam, copy vio, placing personal messages, attacking dutch wikipedians wiki wide, placing self references and utter nonsense wiki wide. You never have contributed to any wikipedia version, you only mis use the encyclopedia seeking attention and doing senseless or destructive edits. You have been blocked on many wikipedia versions already. It is time to call it a day I'd say. MoiraMoira (d) 16 juillet 2008 à 11:50 (CEST)

Hi, well, I've seen the problem especially on nl and de:WP. The problem should be solved here for 3 months, next time will be longer if it restarts the same way. See you. Clem (✉) 16 juillet 2008 à 12:17 (CEST)

Thank you so much. The problem is he misuses the other wiki pages for continuing his attacks on mostly dutch (and some en) wikipedians in Dutch. Have a nice holiday! MoiraMoira (d) 16 juillet 2008 à 12:22 (CEST)

You too. I now have your pages in my watchlist, thus if something happens I will know it. Clem (✉) 16 juillet 2008 à 12:26 (CEST)

Aangezien er sinds kort regelmatig op mijn computer wordt ingebroken ... Read: Recently is wiki-hacked. Ccfr: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do still comprehend the statement from Dutch nl:user: Dmitri Nikolaj too ... D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of another editors comments.

I've kept your change to your commments however I've readded the other editor's commet in which you removed. You can edit or remove your own comments but please refrain from removing other editors comments. Bidgee (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Bidgee, already I replied (and explained before on your talkpage) what is going on here by mobbing, nagging and assulting me with accusations off the record so to speak, or better write. Unfortunately, but for this moment I shall have to respect your motives. Meanwhile, sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff &c 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (ccc)

• The comments you removed are not personal attacks nor uncivil. Let the Admins make up there own mind and by removing another editors comment will go against you which you could be blocked for. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You seem not to be willing to discuss, but only engage in insisting in your reference being added to mainspace articles. You are past 3RR on a couple of pages, having been reverted by a couple of editors. If that happens, then that is reason to discuss on talkpages (with waiting for consensus), BEFORE the information gets added to the article.

I have therefor blocked you for 1 month (as there is already an earlier block for the same reason of 1 week).

I hope this explains, and I hope to see your respons here (you can use the {{unblock}} to get the administrators attention, but I hope you use it wise).
--Dirk Beetstra 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you don't understand so about all those accusations that otherwise have nothing to do with mentioned ref's. First reading before acting and also WP:AGF are the pillars of consensus, and I already deliberated in time with Bidgee, as you clearly could see here above too. Though regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I did some reading/checking, don't worry. I see you constantly reverting others peoples edits, which is not 'achieving consensus'. A first addition to a page indeed falls under assuming good faith, but when you insist in re-performing the edits, then you also fail to assume good faith on others who do not agree with the addition. --Dirk Beetstra 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They are hunting me even around the globe to destroy my references, firstly about the Hon. Vallée, and now recently 'started' by mr. Waggel again but in the English spaces "here" now, and with concern to the other ones that more than ten months were in place without any disturbance. And you blocked me up for defending my integrity? In spite of stalking to disgrace, I can and will not leave here without consequences though, as you probably recognize. Meanwhile with utmost sincerety: D.A. Borgdorff always 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Insignia: On the Last Post to Last Resort.

• WP:OWN .. and defending is not achieving consensus. Apparently the references are disputed, if you would not have gone to push reinserting them, but would have stayed on talkpages, or e.g. WP:RFC (or other venues), then things maybe would have been settled differently. And I am willing to unblock you, if you want to try one of these ways, but the first sign of re-adding the info to the articles yourself (without a clear and broad consensus) will result in an immediate re-block. --Dirk Beetstra 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Beetstra, admitting I'm prepared complying to your wishes - as I mostly am doing, also I do have to reconcile to the inevitable. Faithfully yours D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Post scriptum: Sir unfortunately I just saw the definitive loss of the result of my several months working on those half a dozen Tram and Light Rail articles. I'm considering such very detrimental for motivation on my part. With compliments in resort: D.A. Borgdorff = dAb by 86.83.155.44 (talk)

So resigned on the Last Post in Last Resort with remembrance to my Dutch text:

Translation o.c.: "A people that bows to tyrants - will lose more than life & goods - then the light is fading." Quote: H.M. van Randwijk – Signature: D.A. Borgdorff, 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) → But read your thesis too. Y

If you wish to be unblocked under the conditions I suggested, then you can do so by adding '{{unblock}}' to this page, with an appropriate reason/discussion and an admin will follow up on this. Regarding your 'the definitive loss of the result of my several months working on those half a dozen Tram and Light Rail articles', the majority of things that I see deleted, that have been added by you, are the disputed 'references' you have added. And no, it is not definitive, as I said, request the unblock, and discuss the changes on talkpages, waiting for consensus there. I hope that you, by now, have worked out that pushing the info does not get the information into an article. --Dirk Beetstra 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, comparing us to tyrants, dwarsliggers and nonconformisten does not help your cause, and I hope you can convince 'them' with reason instead of blindly insisting. --Dirk Beetstra 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Beetstra, Thank you for your message. As I have stated, I only was trying to replace those references, because suddenly so they were removed, while being the only ones of that kind in the world. No other Light Rail Transit Specialist (except me) wrote such professional expert-books about Traction-equipment of LRV-series. I am "one of few" in the world and pioneering from early 1970 onwards. You've probably seen my Unabridged Library with more than three hundred refs in my Bibliography GTL8 only, the IEEE-enumeration included. If one isn't interested: let it be, but I've done the Job + Calculations are archived in The Hague City: HGA, as the Royal Library and TUDelft. About the "memorial" words: you could have read the collapsibled sort of E-mail with no answer is an answer too. And therefore: you could consider my quote as a silent protest against an inhumanely treatment as "editwar" to be again prisoned by blocking instead of talking. I feel incomprehensibly pested and haunted for really no reasons at all, like being in stories and novels from Kafka. Apparentlly you've never read nor met someone of the ~ thirty people described in the book of said minister Rev.Dr. Buskes from his 75th birthday with ISBN 90-210-2622-9 ... As I'm too aged to understand those templates here, I'll have to remain faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.i.c. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) PS: See also: here ... about renunciation.

Request to unblock

• Meanwhile eliminated by eradication: Material Waves and Ibidem: Talk.

86.83.155.44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem et cetera: *See above sane arguments in the discussion.

Decline reason:

This request makes no sense. Please read WP:GAB and try again. —  Sandstein  11:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I entirely do not comprehend your decline, because stated reversal of cause and effect. Still always willing to collaborate with utmost regards, but without violation of rules though – Yours sincerely to be {{retired}}: D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

{{tlx|unblock|quotation|1=}}

I am blocked for instance of the three revert rule. I had apologized for this and promised not to do it again. The blocking policy states that blocks are no punishment but a means to prevent future problems. If unblocked, I will not continue to reverting again, but attempting to find a compromise on talk pages instead, trying to dispute resolutions. Because I have promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves such purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. dAb : 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Untill now I still am feeling disproportionately blocked up. D.A. Borgdorff - Eur Ing Quantum Power Electronics: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As blocking admin, I am going to unblock you on the promise that you are going to make your case on appropriate talkpages, waiting for consensus there, and trying to work together with the editors who oppose your edits (and please try to speak in English, not many of us do understand Latin, and that behavious, generally, does not help your arguments). Please have a look at the conflict of interest guideline on this wiki, which gives some information on how to handle these situations. --Dirk Beetstra 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Request handled by: Dirk Beetstra 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Estimable dr. Beetstra: Sir, I herewith like to thank you so much for your decision. With kind regards, respectfully yours D.A. Borgdorff - EIQPE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add a little request to this. I know that there are several people who will scrutinise every single edit you perform here on this wiki. Please try to keep out of conflict with them (and I expect them to try and be constructive as well). --Dirk Beetstra 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I will agree, because the proof of evidence presented itself. In due time I am remaining obligated: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC) → See e.g.: for assessment.

Maybe the responsible administrators also could keep an open eye on the possible scrutiny by other users? Glad to see that this user has been unblocked, btw. Regards, DTBone (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

signing

• Dear DaB. Could you please stop refactoring your signature everywhere (e.g. diff). Your name only is enough, and these edits are just simply disturbing, especially to user talk pages (as they trigger the orange banner). There is no need to annoy people like that. --Dirk Beetstra 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I will apologize, but stated (3) abbreviations were wrong, so to be corrected. Further understanding of a suddenly discordant linking of my sigs, I'd have to changing colouring those alternatively. Always at your service D.A. Borgdorff - MASc.EE - FRIEN - from: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page length

This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance, or ask me. --SSBohio 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome, that unfortunately the last month is rather disturbed by stalking from the Netherlands with blocking me as consequence. Notwithstanding, esteem and sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff - MASc. FRIEN 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Final explanation, blocked

86.83.155.44, You were asking to be unblocked with the following remark:

I am blocked for instance of the three revert rule. I had apologized for this and promised not to do it again. The blocking policy states that blocks are no punishment but a means to prevent future problems. If unblocked, I will not continue to reverting again, but attempting to find a compromise on talk pages instead, trying to dispute resolutions. Because I have promised not to cause any more problems, my block no longer serves such purpose allowed by the blocking policy. Therefore, I request to be unblocked.

(I added emphasis to a part of this)

I have unblocked you (considering that, and because I do feel that you are being followed around the projects (although I also do understand why you are being followed!)), and asked you:

... I am going to unblock you on the promise that you are going to make your case on appropriate talkpages, waiting for consensus there, and trying to work together with the editors who oppose your edits (and please try to speak in English, not many of us do understand Latin, and that behavious, generally, does not help your arguments). ...

(again, I added emphasis to a part of this)

Since that time, you made several edits to user talkpages (mainly your own), one to the wikipedia talk namespace (changing your signature), one to a talkspace (changing your signature) and 4 edits in mainspace. There are NO edits on appropriate talkpages (e.g. of the 2 articles in mainspace edited or in discussion on an appropriate wikiproject), and you undid two reversions of your additions.

• diff Adding the cite which is under discussion, and which is apparently not wanted, without a discussion with consensus
• diff Alos adding the cite which is under discussion...
• diff Reverting, which you promised not to do again
• diff another reversion.

You clearly completely fail to understand what the words discussing and consensus mean, and since your signature and the added link suggest that you have a conflict of interest, you are again asked to not make these edits yourself, D.A. Borgdorff. At all! Please stop your pushing, this is your final warning. I am applying a 1 week block to this account, which should give you time to think and consider this warning. I will decline any unblock requests during that time (though if other admins here think it is appropriate to unblock, they are free to do so), and I hope that after the block expires, you will discuss all disputed edits in talkspace only, refraining in any way from adding that sentence to mainspace again yourself (or anything similar to that). Any further additions will result in this IP being blocked, for increasingly longer times with every block. Opposed information does not get added here because you know the best (even if it is completely true that you do know the best), but it gets added after consensus has been reached. You completely fail to achieve that. As I said:

You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

--Dirk Beetstra 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert the pages I was blocked for, as I promised so. Apparently people insisting to delete my other refs. D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in either the unblock request, nor in the grant for unblock were pages named. However, you were blocked originally for disruptive editing, edit warring and reference spamming. You continued in persisting that that reference should be added that caused you being blocked in the first place, and you did revert edits of editors opposing these edits. Again no discussion. And that is now again what you are being blocked for. The reference you add is badly formatted, disputed, and undiscussed. Please, please start civil discussion on talkpages before adding anything related to that reference again (and if other information that you add gets disputed then also do not revert, but discuss on talkpages). --Dirk Beetstra 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very, very sorry Sir to disagreeing, but my references were undisputed all placed as per september 2007 till shortly ago, when suddenly they were deleted without any discussion by people whose only purpose seems to be stalking me wherever possible. That is obvious to everyone, even me. Utmost kind regards with my apologies included in advance with reference to above Dutch sentence quoted where I am forced to shut up my mouth again. Sincerely yours so without name to shame as suggested to you this morning. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having a look at this, as there are things not right here. You did introduce the reference yourself (diff of a series of edits by you), and it has not been seriously challanged since that time. Although I do see that this seems to be a reference to yourself, it is removed here without comment. I am going to revert myself, and unblock you. However, if it gets removed again it without reason, do not revert yourself, but seek the way of discussing. Sorry for the confusion, but please do stay away from warring/reverting .. --Dirk Beetstra 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Beetstra, thank you for understanding my situation where I'm trying to comprehend and collaborate as much as possible. Truly: - D.A. Borgdorff via 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, please stay away from any form of self-promoting and error warring. Let uninvolved editors decide if material deserves inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My latest remarks implicate holding your clearly stated request to respect. Faithfully yours, I am: D.A. Borgdorff – s.s.t.t. – from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC) PS: Your discussion about those 147 nl:GTL8 LRV on the site 100% Haags, in the Forum there under my name Borgdorff some quotations from my via Van Stockum sold book are still to be found for said reference by the search function of that site. Regards: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

D.A. Borgdorff .. please, please stay away from commenting on anything that is promotional for you, or what may, even remotely, seem like that (like the last statement above here, signed at 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)). It is what is getting you blocked everywhere, and know that spamming does not apply to the content namespaces only.

And please try to also keep your other forms of self-promotion, of egotism and of adulating behaviour to an absolute minimum, it really does not help! --Dirk Beetstra 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Beetstra, my apologies again for apparently misunderstanding, so wrong interpretation of said statements in attempting to explaining matters. Still, I 'll remain faithfully yours as retired engineer D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)