User talk:Kenny56

Areas of Interest

Science: Develop an intuitive approach to understanding a gyroscope based upon the basic concepts of physics.

Mass

Inertia

Momentum

Moment of Inertia

Angular momentum

Motorcycles: Performance, design, suspension, handling, testing, racing.

Countersteering

For countersteering, develop both an intuitive explanation and a rigorous mathematical proof.

Inertia Reverts

Kenny, I saw you added the phrase ((dubious)) in many places of the inertia article. Instead of doing that, please just revert the dubious edits. The current editor, Light current, is trying to disable and delete much of the current article, and I could use some help in defending it. StuRat 02:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i used the dubious tags because i thought that was the recommended approach to disagreements based upon incorrect facts or science. i also added a ((disputed)) tag to flag the beginning of the article, also based upon my reading of the wiki procedures, etc. Thanks for the update and information, and hopefully a defense can be established without too much wasted time and effort. Kenny56 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that you've removed all your comments from the inertia talk page (moved there from the gyroscope talk page). That leaves a one sided conversation there. You semed to have excellent responses to many of Light current's claims, why did you remove them all ? StuRat 03:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i felt like i had been responding to a troll or a crank looking for a fight. At first i thought he was a curious student seriously interested in the subject; then i found out later he didn't really want a serious answer or to spend any time or thought researching the answer on his own, as much as he was looking for someone with whom to argue. A teacher once told me that arguing with a fool is like wrestling with a pig: you can't win, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it. Kenny56 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I dont consider myself a fool... and neither should you. Most people here argue in good faith and try to expose erroneous arguments. If this means playing devils advocate sometimes, then so be it.--Light current 03:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid he took the removal of your responses as saying "I withdraw all objections, make whatever chages you like"...which he then did. StuRat 13:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get any good articles in wiki?

Is it possible? See the following discussion from talk:inertia.

Your answer is, again, very interesting. I agree with you that the article should present inertia in terms of newtonian dynamics. But the title of the article being Inertia, I think it should also gives the meanings that the word inertia has in others contexts. --24.202.163.194 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to read you find my considerations interesting. I think I have contributed all I can. I have been roaming around on wikipedia talk pages for some time now, and I don't think it is possible to obtain good wikipedia physics articles. Different people can be committed to totally different theories about physics, so different that there is no prospect of reaching a consensus. I am committed to a particular point of view, to me my point of view looks like the only logical one. Different belief systems about physics keep clashing; I don't think it's ever going to work. --Cleonis | Talk 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it is said:«NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".»

Thus we have, we must!, represent all views i.e. here, all theories (wikipedia has criterias for this too). That means that we don't need at all to get a consensus, but made a fair place to each of the theories which respond to the criterias mentionned above. If we don't follow that, I agree with you that, surely and very certainly, 'it's ever going to work'. But if we follow the principles of wikipedia, it will work. It will take time, but it will work. So lets give it a try, at least. --24.202.163.194 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Zyklon B

Could you say which specific facts on the Zyklon B page you are disputing, and what contradictory information you have? Thanks, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic field decline

Can refer me to the source where you got the exponential decay? --Octupole 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscopic effects in [Countersteering]

Do you have a reference or have you done the math to back up your sentence "Motorcycles turn corners using the gyroscopic roll reaction force of the spinning front wheel"? It appears to contradict The "throw it off balance" method. It also seems odd that motorcycles would use a special effect that bicycles seem not to, and that they would depend on an effect that is inversely related to their forward speed. AndrewDressel 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gyro3axes.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gyro3axes.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]