Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Fluxus oneris electrici" differant

Content deleted Content added
Linea 53:
:::[http://books.google.com/books?id=WqaGuP1HqE0C&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q=fluxio&f=false Principia pages you couldn't find]--[[Specialis:Conlationes/24.183.186.151|24.183.186.151]] 12:36, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
::::Those uses of ''fluxio'' I did find; but they are '''all''' in the annotations by Leseur and Jacquier, not Newton's text. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:40, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
:::::Whoever wrote whatever, it was published in his lifetime under his supervision, they are discussion the concept Newton conceived in Latin. So what is your point? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fluxus may have a normal Latin meaning, but in physics it is important to distinguish a current from a flux. One is a quantitative special case of the other. Regardless of what was called once, why is it that today that in Romance languages they do not call it a flujo electrico (means the same as fluxus electricus), but a corriente electrica (=fluxio electrica, correns electrica)? I ask again, by your logic since electric power is called vis electrica, do we move our page on electric power to this name too??! In day to day latin it would be ok, but not as the title of an encyclopedic article on the physics concept.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/130.215.96.89|130.215.96.89]] 13:44, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Fluxus oneris electrici".