Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Fluxus oneris electrici" differant
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
|||
Linea 116:
::::::::::explicitly stating that flow and flow rate can be expressed using the same word: 'current' in English, ''fluxus'' in Latin. I disagree with your definition of the "essence" of current for the same reason. In a wire carrying a constant DC current, nothing is changing - yet we say a current exists, as there is a flow of electricity. Yes, ''fluxus electricus'' may be more accurately ''fluxus electricitatis'', but we can use the shorter form in Latin, just as we normally say in English 'electric current' and not 'current of electricity'.
::::::::::Last, no such clear attestations have been produced and you must know that if you have followed the discussion. As I explained above, including quoting his original Latin, Newton did not mean rate of flow in the liquid sense when he coined 'fluxion', he only meant rate of 'flow' of a mathematical quantity. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:36, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Like most english wiki articles, the beginning is a mess as it tries to explain how different people use the term electric current, ranging from consumers of electric energy to scientists. They are actually two distinct concepts, a popular one based on a vague notion of flow of a fluid and a scientific one based on a definition I=dQ/dt. I agree they do not deserve a separate page, but the concepts should be clearly distinguished.
::::::::::::The equivalent evidently in latin would be to say the fluxus electricus is electric flow, current, or electric flux, depending on context. Which is really a discretiva rather than a definition of a single concept.
::::::::::::Fluxus electricitatis is ok but only because electricitas is also ambiguous, electricity being a vague concept in all languages, with many contradictory defintions, emcompanssing even current, encluding in english.
::::::::::::My objection to the page fluxus electricus being principally about electric current is based on the fact that flow ''in physics '' is different than current. And that term fluxus electricus equivalently means the same as electric flux. If flow meant the same as current, them why do all languages distinguish them with different words? Why isn't the english term for current electric flow? Why isn't the spanish term current flujo electrico? In fact, is there any Romance language that calls the electric current electric flow?... There is a reason. The reason is semantic. The two phenomena are conceptually distinct. I think therefore a discretiva page is necessary to distinguish a page on current versus a page on flux, both ''phenomena''--to use your term--being equivalently described by the term fluxus electricus in latin.
::::::::::::I think the latin page on current should be entitled fluxio electrica for the reaasons stated above (Newton's explicit authority isn't necessary since there are plenty of sources indicating fluxio is "the running of a fluid"). Such a page e.g. should include an explanation of how fluxus electricus can equivalently be used for fluxus oneris electrici to state the phenomenon of flow of electricity as distinguised from the concept of electric current.
:::::::::::::--[[Specialis:Conlationes/24.183.186.151|24.183.186.151]] 17:06, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
| |||