File talk:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif

Altered image

Altered images violate the WP:NOR policy and should not be used to illustrate the main Wikipedia namespace. The reason is that they purport to illustrate something that is not true: they capture a moment in time that never occurred. This is a beautiful animation and it clearly took a great deal of effort to capture; but the animation does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Tempshill 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out anything in the WP:NOR policy that is being violated here? Is this a novel interpretation of history? Is this the creation of a new scientific theory? Is this twisting some data to produce a new theory that no one has published before? No, it's a nice image which represents perfectly the dripping of water from a tap. Stevage 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not in violation of the "no original research" policy. Please don't be ridiculous.--Sean Black 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its nice. Simple, yet deep. If a can of soup can be art, I think this is in the same boat with it. Besides, what is there to research? Go to your bathroom, and turn the tap on a bit... BAM! Same thing. Ghostalker 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chaos

I'd like to point out that the time between two drops is chaotic and not regular as the image may suggest. --MarSch 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the tap in the room next to mine. Surely, it could well be regular, if there was a very small, yet regular stream of water still coming into the tap? J Milburn 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true. It can be chaotic, but can also be periodic, depending on the geometry of the opening and the water flow rate, and probably some other factors. At least, that's what I learned from a chaotic water drop lab experiment a couple years ago.. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-29 22:18Z