h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

I'm subbing your Coriolis Force entry at the moment. I haven't got into much detail, just ammended a few things to put it in line with the guidelines! Anyway, just to let you know if you want to see what I've done so far its at:
A593273

and reply to this if you've any comments. I'll let you know when I think I've done so you can check before I send it up.



Konrad

I haven't checked every word against the original, so I can't tell what you've done. It reads well, and says what I intended, so thanks! Blip me if there are any more changes.

Cheers!

Right, as far as I'm concerned I'm done. I've put the referenced researchers in as co-authors, and I'm afraid I can't really think of a way of linking *all* the entries you mention into the text. Some (eg the jets/rockets one) don't add anything to the coriolis entry.

Anyway, take a look and make a comment, and I'll post it up to the italics.



Konrad

Right, as far as I'm concerned I'm done. I've put the referenced researchers in as co-authors, and I'm afraid I can't really think of a way of linking *all* the entries you mention into the text. Some (eg the jets/rockets one) don't add anything to the coriolis entry.

Anyway, take a look and make a comment, and I'll post it up to the italics.



Konrad

Hi Konrad,

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I haven't compared the finished article with the original side-by-side, I'd spend too much time second guessing why you've done things. I've just looked at the finished article and asked myself if I'm happy for it to go out with my moniker on it. The answer is: YES! Good work sir. Four small points:

1. Rampant egotism: I had the idea for the entry, wrote it and incorporated some of the comments I received, including proper links to the researchers whose input I used. Is there any chance, therefore, that I could actually be top of the list of contributing researchers? I mean, credit where it's due and all that...

2. Apology: I didn't mean for you to link to *all* the other articles I'd written (sorry, I was unclear). I meant only to retain links where possible to other stuff I'd written. You have. Thanks. But this leads on to...

3. Technical point: You've retained the link to the entry on centrifugal force. However, this is the link to my unedited version. The entry has been recommended, but the link here must go to the Edited version. I don't know how you can find out what the edited version number is or will be - you may just have to wait. If I can find out I'll let you know here.

4. Linguistic point: this one's my fault, I got my tenses confused. Where it says

"Your missile travelled in a perfectly straight line - but while it was up in the air the ground moved beneath it, so that it lands on a different line of longitude than the one it took off from."

could you please change it to

"Your missile travelled in a perfectly straight line - but while it was up in the air the ground moved beneath it, so that it landed on a different line of longitude than the one it took off from."

i.e. change "lands" to "landed". Thanks.

Other than those... Thanks

Further to point (3) above, the correct reference for the Edited Entry on Centrifugal Force is A597152.

Cheers for the 4 points:

1) rampant egotism: I'm with you on this one, and before I modified your entry I was already on to the powers that be (via the subs mailing list) for some sort of middle way between a full co-authorship credit (where everyone contributing gets equal billing and therefore the order of credit is (I think) researcher number), and no acknowledgement at all. The upshot is that its on the wish list (apparently the matter has been raised a few times this year - I've only been subbing for a fortnight so obviously I've missed previous discussions).

we've two options. Either I leave them in, and then we both keep an eye out for when the tag system changes and I chase the editors up to change the article to give you prime authorship credit. Alternatively I can axe them, we keep an eye out, and add them back in when they change the tag system. Personally, I'd rather go for the former - what do you think?

2) Apology: fine, thought that was what you were saying but I wasn't entirely clear.

3) What with the new subbing system, with an edited and unedited version, I'm not sure whats going on. I think they said leave links to pending articles and the PTB would sort it, I'll check then submit accordingly.

4) Good point - thought it was part of the south east England estuary phrasing I know and love. Will ammend according to Standard English

Right, looks like its almost done.

Konrad

Konrad,

I'm all for leaving the author list as is until H2G2 comes up with something better. I'd rather there was credit given: *I* know I wrote it, and so does everyone on the list. That's all that really matters, since we aren't getting paid for this stuff!

H

Good good - I'll submit it now



Konrad

Hi Hooloovoo,

I've just cast an eye over this entry which Konrad has just returned to the Towers. I'm afraid I have a couple of problems with it in terms of the physics, about which I know enough to see some problems.

The main problem, however, is that the non-existence of the 'Coriolis Force' can be much more simply addressed by the fact that it's been confused with the 'Coriolis Effect'. You've explained, very well, that this effect does indeed exist - the standard trajectory and roundabout thought experiments - but you state that a force has to be 'made up' to account for it, and that's why it doesn't exist.

The explanation for the effect does, in fact, follow all of Newton's laws (as does all non-relativistic mechanics), provided you take a sensible vector approach to the two directions of acceleration, which both change.

I can fairly quickly edit the article to take this misconception into account, but I thought I'd run it by you beforehand. What do you think?

This really ties in with the Entry on Centrifugal Force, a similarly convenient fiction. I'd be happy with a line saying that it's correctly referred to as the Coriolis effect, but in order to make sense in conjunction with the centrifugal force entry, it needs to remain as a discussion of the effect as being able to be considered as an imaginary "force" which under certain circumstances simplifies calcs. Have you seen the centrifugal force entry? Check out the PR conversation thread for that to see how difficult it can be to make people consider a vector approach "sensible". The point here is that standing on the earth the vector approach may well be sensible, but it's counterintuitive based on observations unless you're taking the big view.

btw, what (other) problems with the physics?

H

ps - thanks for asking...

Yes, I had a look through 'Centrifugal Force' as well.

Actually, upon re-reading it (and it not being Monday anymore), I can appreciate your approach a bit better. For myself, I would just be unwary of utilising any 'imaginary forces' to make any calculation easier: my mechanics tutor always insisted that I calculate these types of things the proper way using vectors, where nothing really needs to be simplified.

[Of course, that doesn't stop me using Imaginary Numbers to make it easier to calculate electronic circuit resonance! ]

The point I was making - and it's not really one that, on reflection, should change your entry much - was that if the principles of vector mechanics are properly understood, the whole conception of 'imaginary forces' never appears, so never needs to be warned against. It's really just a philosophical opposition - rather academic, I suppose.

Have a look at the Penn State link I've put on my 'Link-a-tronic' page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A609518. Although it doesn't actually get around to describing the vector mechanics required for explaining the effect, it does address some good points, some of which I'd never considered either...

Hi. Just checked out the update, great, no problem. One quick question. A Researcher styled "Jules" has just had an excellent and very comprehensive article on frames of reference recommended. If at all possible, can we have a link from this entry to that one? It would really help people understand, I think...

H.

Okay-doke: I'll have a look and see what I can do.