User talk:Berserkerus
Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "Amplitude modulation", without giving a good reason in the edit summary. This is vandalism. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zephyrad (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "Frequency modulation", without giving a good reason in the edit summary. This is vandalism. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zephyrad (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Lie, non-sense", etc.[change source]
Sorry, but my professional education does not support your assertion; it supports the image you replaced. Please do not change this image again without providing full documentation of your sources. Make any further replies you have to this matter here, or on the talk pages for AM and/or FM. (Or even better, on the image's page.)
Your message on my talk page could also be taken as a personal attack. This kind of behavior I do not take lightly. Zephyrad (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up[change source]
I will say it again: Do not leave replies to this matter on my talk page. If you have an argument you can make that your assertion is correct, make it on the relevant pages, or here. I have seen oscilloscopes in action. I work every week with graphic readouts of audio. My experience supports the previous illustration, not the one you made. The earlier one is a better demonstration of the principles being explained. I do not care what the characters are (Latin or Cyrillic) in your illustration, and I'm not going to do your work for you. Any more of this and I take the matter to an administrator.
- As u wish. But administrator must not know all about physics of waves. Editor with understanding physics of time and phase of wave must remove amfm2.gif picture too.--Berserkerus (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I also reject your suggestion that I "make problems to prove something". I see more of that in your own actions, and the attitude you have shown. Zephyrad (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, I also reject all your suggestion (attack, vandalism and so on).--Berserkerus (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must point out that niether of those two pictures are even close to the behaviour of an energy wave and that both pictures are equally good descriptions. I have read the arguements and you should try as hard to explain the differences between the pictures as you are explaining differences between yourselves. ~ R.T.G 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not fully understand sentence, but i suppose u request explanation from me why amfm2.gif picture is not correct... Answer: Picture represent wave of voltage or current or energy on axis of ordinates, and time or position on axis of ordinates. When animation in progress watch any point of wave for observation en:phase speed. My picture (amfm3) have phase speed in constant, but picture amfm2 have very very queer phase speed. Point of phase move forward and backward that very uncommon. Its impossible in vacuum, but its unsolved in dispersive transmission line.--Berserkerus (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Word "neither" u mean?--Berserkerus (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must point out that niether of those two pictures are even close to the behaviour of an energy wave and that both pictures are equally good descriptions. I have read the arguements and you should try as hard to explain the differences between the pictures as you are explaining differences between yourselves. ~ R.T.G 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- An actual radio wave does not move in such a straight line like a piece of string (does it?) BUT I am sure the piece of string is the best picture to describe it. I know very little of radios waves but it did seem odd that in one picture the waves moved backwards. That would not make a good sound on a radio I guess. ~ R.T.G 13:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- An actual radio wave (its field strength) move like pack in vacuum(not in special waveguide). Because wave is pack of photons in essence. It has constant phase speed, equal speed of light. Thanks for correcting in this part of wikipedia.--Berserkerus (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not me. User:Jonas D. Rand fixed it. To see who last changed a page, press the "History" tab at the top of the page. But, I did think it was more correct if the waves did not move backwards (but I am not educated in the matter). Perhaps, whenever possible, the image should be altered to use english language text. ~ R.T.G 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)