Talk:Kilogram/Archive 4

message: With a gold-based definition of the kilogram for instance, the definition of the mole would be changed from one based on a carbon-12 to the quantity of atoms as are in 196.966 569 g of gold (from the current value of 196.966 569(4) grams) and the kilogram would be defined as “the mass equal to that of precisely 1000/196.966569 moles (≅5.077 003 7021 moles) of gold atoms.”
In which way wouldn't that be a circular definition?
As it currently stands, that number, 196.966569 ± 4×10−6, is twelve times the ratio between the mass of a gold-197 atom and the one of a carbon-12 atom. Of course, it is a dimensionless constant, we cannot fix it to anything, and it won't help us to define the kilogram (unless we fix the Avogadro number).
Perhaps it was meant to be "the mass of 3 057 443 616 231 138 188 735 gold atoms"? If so, it should state that. --Army1987 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold atom count: a circular definition? 

message: Since you are basing your arguments above in part on the Wikipedia article at weight, please go check out the only reliable source cited as a reference in that article, on exactly the point for which it is cited.  It specifically says that "the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram".   Can't get much more straightforward than that, can you? It also, of course, describes a different meaning of the ambiguous word weight, for which the SI unit of weight is the newton.  Gene Nygaard 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Not worthy of a response. See above answer. Greg L (my talk) 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: P.S. to Greg's attempts to use another Wikipedia article as a source

message: Whether or not buoyancy is accounted for or not in what is called "weight" is not consistent.  Weight is used both ways.  It depends in part on the context.
But in any case, that is a discussion for the Weight article.  It doesn't belong here.  Gene Nygaard 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buoyancy sometimes is, sometimes not part of weight, but doesn't belong here either way

message: Let me repeat here a warning I just posted on Greg's talk page:
A simple warning should suffice. Do not make false accusations of vandalism, as you did here — and do not remove dispute, dubious, fact tages and the properly added and documented on the talk page while the controversy continues. Gene Nygaard 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total hogwash. You’ve received more than your fair share of “simple warnings”. What you did is pure and simple vandalism. And all because you weren’t getting your way. Doing what you did is never acceptable on Wikipeida. If you want to get an article shotgunned with a whole bunch of disputed tags, try get an administrator to do it for you; you’ll fail too. Enuja warned you about this when she wrote “I do not think this article warrants either "disputed" or "misleading" tags” and then you threw them all over the article. If you can’t learn to accept that your arguments aren't getting traction with other editors and instead pull that stunt again, you will not only get reverted, but you’ll be called to the mat over it. Your choice of a title for this discussion topic “A warning to Greg L” indicates to me that you are personalizing this issue too much. Maybe you need to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. I can see that your editing behavior is becoming unproductive and bothersome to other editors too. Greg L (my talk) 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  GregL, Gene Nygaard is a legit editor of longtime standing that has a difference of opinion than you.  He ain't vandalizing, but he is acting to restrain your edits a bit.  Otherwise, this turns into GregL's Kilogram page.  Oh, I just noticed User:Swatjester is here.  I must be total schitz to be talking to myself again since Swat says it's "pretty obvious" that you and I are the same.  (That's an admin who could use a little correction himself.) 207.190.198.130 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A warning to Greg L

message: Slashme, understood that “gravity” is a universal property. But isn’t “strength of gravity” 1) perfectly clear, and 2) both accurate and proper; to describe the principle without all that verbiage?  NASA uses it here. I think the rather burdened “strength of the local gravitational field” sounds too much like the Professor on Gilligan’s Island. Simpler language sounds less pretentious. So I compromised here and in the two instances used “strength of local gravity.” Does that work for you?  Thanks for all your well intentioned edits. I think they’ve improved the article. Greg L (my talk) 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that will do OK.  I don't think Gilligan's Island was ever shown in South Africa, though, so I'll need a better example of a pompous wordy intellectual to properly follow your reasoning about simpler language sounding less pretentious. --Slashme 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As painful as it is to watch, I understand and accept your reasoning (I think). I’ll noodle on some of them for a few days. Very good job so far; I appreciate the thought you’ve put into what edits to make and your reasoned and pithy edit summary explanations you’re leaving for me. Are you an administrator? You’re so young!  Greg L (my talk) 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help.  I'm particular about using edit summaries and trying to make them reliable, because it is very useful to later editors.  I even go to the trouble of using  on the pages of users who don't use them!  As for my youth, the picture on my userpage is about a decade old by now ;-)  And no, I'm not an admin.  Last time I asked, I had only been with the project for a few months, and they told me to come back in 6 months, but I never got around to it (real life etc.).  Most of the stuff I do doesn't need admin privileges anyway. --Slashme 06:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity vs. gravitational field

message: Slashme: I know you are from South Africa so it was likely force of habit when you used the “metre” spelling a couple of times. Since there wasn’t a previous post here on this discussion page covering this topic, I thought it time to put one here. Wikipedia’s official policy is that the spelling convention used by the first major contributors should be retained. The Kilogram article is—and has been—written throughout with American spelling (kilogram instead of kilogramme, meter instead of metre). Note the following passage, taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style:
Note that “meter” is the proper American spelling. Note further that this article has been consistently using the American spelling for words like “kilogram,” “liter,” and “meter”. Please also take note of another common-sense policy from Wikipedia:Manual of Style:
Greg L (my talk) 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the policy; I'd just forgotten that you Americans don't make the distinction between a "meter" as in "gauge" and a "metre" as in "unit of length".  Also, the Wikipedia article on "metre" is spelled "correctly" ;-), so when I saw the meter I thought it was a simple mistake. --Slashme 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling: National conventions

message: * Slashme, the problem is that it is impossible to argue rationally with Gene Nygaard to a proper conclusion if Gene sees the facts a different way. I’m not the only one. Check out this exchange two poor editors had to wage with his objections over on Talk:Mass. Gene Nygaard has been railing in every relevant article on Wikipedia as to how “weight” in the physical sciences isn’t really “force due to gravity.” Well, it is, and this issue is at the heart of much of his objections here. It’s impossibly tedious to argue his points on the face of them. I’ll take the two easiest ones (from Disputed, above) here:
::5.2: His charge: “Whether or not buoyancy is accounted for in measurements of weight, in any meaning of the word, varies.”
::: Answer: His statement is incorrect at all levels to the point it is difficult to address. The sub-section isn’t about whether or not buoyancy is accounted for in measurements of weight, the subsection’s title is Buoyancy and “conventional mass” and is about how mass standards are compensated for the effect of buoyancy. Troemner’s FAQ sheet explains all this. Troemner is the company that made the NIST’s stainless steel check standards But in a nut shell, buoyancy is compensated for during the manufacture of mass standards and its effect is addressed in their use.
::7: His charge: He rails against my use of “µGal” when referring to the use of an absolute, dropping-mass gravimeter and its accuracy.
::: Answer: It’s very simple. As Wikipedia’s own Gal (unit) article says, “The gal, sometimes called galileo, (symbol Gal) is a non-SI unit of acceleration used extensively in the science of gravimetry.” It is the unit used by all manufacturers of precision gravimeters. All gravimetry maps, whether produced by geologists in the field or NASA via its satellites, report gravitational variations in mGals and µGals. The manufacturer of the gravimeter used in national labs specifies the device’s accuracy as 2 µGal (which I mentioned in the article). The gal is the unit used by anyone who uses the devices, notably, the NIST in their work with the electronic kilogram. When one speaks of gravity gradients on Earth when precision gravimeters are being used in mass metrology research labs, the µGal is used. What does all this mean? According to Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement, “In scientific articles, [editors should] use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.”
:A proper response to the rest of Gene Nygaard’s “issues” would be too tedious for my reply here to you. Further, a proper treatment of all his objections in any forum would be too tedious. No one should have to put up with so much of it in order to make well-researched edits to Wikipedia.
:When you go through all the details of all of Gene Nygaard’s objections, one by one, as someone has to do, one comes to precisely the conclusion that Timb66 came to when he wrote at the bottom of Talk:Mass: “I don't understand this comment. Gene seems to be raising objections for the sake of it. This is not a difficult concept, why has it become so difficult? Please can we move on?” As I wrote above, at some point you just have to say “I’m not going to play your games anymore”. It’s time to move on and settle this some other way. And in fact, the issue of the tags is being handled with this Wikiquette alert. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where common sense and civility simply must prevail. Gene Nygaard is currently blocked—and will be for another two days—for incivility. Being that I’m in the trenches here, I seem to be the poor bastard stuck with dealing with the details. Consequently, I’m faced with the realities of a total lack of common sense in this process. That’s not a “personal attack”, that’s simple reality. Gene’s behavior has a name; it’s called tendentious and disruptive editing and other editors shouldn’t have to put up with it anymore.  Greg L (my talk) 16:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Gene's block should expire today, if I understand correctly.  I notified him of this discussion on his talk page, and invited him to find people who agree with his point of view to come and explain here.  I suggest we give it another day or so, and if no cogent reason to keep the tags is proffered, we remove them. --Slashme 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Slashme, I understood what you were trying to communicate with your rewriting of my above response and separating them into “Heat” and “Light” sections as you did here (difference). Thank you (sorta). However, it wasn’t proper for you to rewrite what I wrote and sign my name to the “Heat” section and leave the “Light” section unsigned. Even though you may very well be the most level-headed editor involved in this issue, please don’t assume that you may take it upon yourself to decided how I may think and express my thoughts. I may eventually refer to the above in final arguments on the Wikiquette alert. You are perfectly at liberty to unambiguously express your thoughts in this forum. I have no problem if you quote the above in its entirely and paraphrase it as long as it is clear as to which author wrote what content.  Greg L (my talk) 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: “Sorting it out”

message: OK, let's start all over again.  I know that you're frustrated with Gene, and I agree that I should have left your text here verbatim and unchanged.  But let's try and keep the flames out of the discussion.  Here is a good place to post simple rational arguments about the content that should be in the article, not his conduct.  It's not an argument about who is a better person, it's about resolving the content issue.  I invite you to keep the content issues physically separate on this page.  I would personally cut and paste them, but that doesn't work. 
Gene, if you see this post before Greg gets here, I invite you to specifically state your opinion as to what the content of the article should be, separate from any issues which may have arisen from Greg's actions. --Slashme 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Light

message: =====TotallyDisputed tag=====
This section has a "TotallyDisputed-section" tag which indicates that the neutrality and accuracy of the section is under dispute.
Discussion:
* Remove tag: I can't see what's wrong with it, please explain further. --Slashme 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The unit of force: kilogram-force

message: This section has a "TotallyDisputed-section" tag which indicates that the neutrality and accuracy of the section is under dispute.
Discussion:
* Remove tag: I can't see what's wrong with it, please explain further. --Slashme 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TotallyDisputed tag

message: The section also has a "content" tag that questions the relevance of the section.
Discussion:
* Remove tag: As above, in my opinion the section provides necessary context. --Slashme 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content tag

message: From Greg L: I very much look forward to addressing Gene’s issues (enumerated and explained in Disputed, above) in a structured environment. As I already did with two issues here (“Sorting it out, above), we’ll be able to address these issues once and for all and be on with life. So while, I’m here, I’ll address another one: the central issue that got Gene started on this: that “weight” in the physical sciences is “force due to gravity”. Gene wrote above in his enumeration as follows:
::2 In Kilogram#Mass vs. weight
:::2.1 Issues have been raised above about the appropriateness to this entire section to the article, and have not been resolved
::3 In Kilogram#The distinction between the two'''
:::3.1 Saying that mass is "quite distinct from the downwards gravitational force" is appropriate.  Trying to push a point of view that the latter is God's ordained meaning of the ambiguous word weight is not.
:::3.2 We've actually had a number of astronauts on the moon.  A citation from a reliable source indicating what the "weight" of any one of them actually was on the moon and on the Earth would change this from a hypothetical to a real example example.  If none of them are available, then we can substute for that hypothetical a real-world example that is available:  the weight of the various lunar modules at various times while they were on the moon.
:::3.3 The "in the physical sciences" language remains under active dispute; it is far too broad in scope.
* Addressing 2.1: That’s a judgment call. For one thing, the kilogram is central to the whole issue of “mass vs. weight” since it is the SI base unit of mass. Many other editors have made edits to this section to improve on it, not delete it. Given that Gene’s major dispute is with the entire notion of asserting that weight equates to force due to gravity, I believe his view of the topic gives him a jaundiced view of any treatment of the subject and this unreasonably biases him against giving the subject the correct and proper treatment here.
* Addressing 3.1 (“Trying to push a point of view that [‘downwards gravitational force’] is God's ordained meaning of the ambiguous word weight is not [appropriate]”): Encyclopedia Britannica very simply defines “weight” as “[the] gravitational force of attraction on an object, caused by the presence of a massive second object, such as the Earth or Moon.” Wikipedia’s Weight article defines weight as follows: In the physical sciences, weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. World Book (print edition) says this under Weight: Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. Further, the Kilogram article adheres perfectly to Britannica’s discussion of the distinction between “weight” and “mass”. The article also gives proper and fair treatment to the fact that the term “weight” in common vernacular can occasionally mean “mass.”When I told Gene of these facts above, he responded with “There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopedia Britannica.” He also said “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” and then linked “reliable source” to Wikipedia’s own Wikipedia:Reliable sources. He didn’t agree with either Wikipedia’s definition nor Encyclopedia Britannica’s. With regard to World Book, he responded only with “Now World Book too?” We should not feel like we have to change reality here on Wikipedia. It’s time to put this one to bed and move on.As for Gene’s “…God's ordained meaning…” line, that charge is without foundation. The article is abundantly clear that there is a difference between the strict, scientific distinction and the common usage. The article states as follows: “In everyday usage, the weight of objects is often given in kilograms. Strictly speaking though, the kilogram is a unit of mass; the “weight” of an object is its gravitational force and is measured in newtons…” The article also states as follows: “In the physical sciences, the terms “mass” and “weight” are rigidly defined as separate measures in order to enforce clarity and precision. In everyday use, given that all masses on Earth have weight and this relationship is usually highly proportional, “weight” often serves to describe both properties, its meaning being dependent upon context.” It is only the above-cited professional print encyclopedias, not this article, that suggest that there is only one, God-ordained meaning of the word “weight.”
* Addressing 3.2: The meaning and ramification of “weight” on the Moon is exceedingly clear (Google search result here). Gene’s assertion that it is incorrect to write that an astronaut’s weight on the moon is less than it is on Earth, but it is OK to write that the lunar module’s weight is less on the Moon than on Earth is without foundation. If Gene found a reference stating Earth-equivalent weights of the LEM on the Moon’s surface, then the intent of the writer was clear and Gene cited the example of the LEM only in an effort to subvert the proper and unconfused treatment of the subject here. If this latter option is where Gene was trying to take us to, then he raised a red herring and isn’t being constructive.
* Addressing 3.3: As for Gene’s “The ‘in the physical sciences’ language remains under active dispute; it is far too broad in scope”: Two, preeminent print encyclopedias simply state, without any equivocation, that “weight” is “force due to gravity”. This article goes beyond those treatments and directly addresses the reality that the term “weight” in common vernacular has different meanings in different contexts. For Gene to write that the “language remains under active dispute” is self-referential; he’s the one who disputes it. The meaning of “weight” in the physical sciences is is clear.
Greg L (my talk) 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing more issues