User talk:195.134.32.213

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Specific gravity

Hi,
I'm the one that consistently reverts your edits in the Specific gravity article back to Relative density. I'm doing this since it is basically the same content, and there is now a section in Relative density about Specific gravity. There is no need to repeat or fork the same content in Wikipedia, which is why Specific gravity should remain a redirect. I encourage you to improve the edits in Relative density, as I've already merged some of the content you have written in Specific gravity. Sorry if it has been frustrating for you to keep "fixing" what I've done. +mwtoews 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there mwtoews, i've noticed.... :-)

As you can see from the top of the article on 'Relative density' there is dispute about its factual accuracy. And also, in the talk page people are questioning the point of 'Relative density'. SG is specific, and must be, specifically referred to water. If not it would only be a relative density, potentially not helping w.r.t calculations. If you only know the relative density of a material, how do you find its density? In SG you know what the ref. is, and can thereby find a given materials density. Also, SG is unit-independent, i.e it works just as fine in Imperial as in SI, or any other system - so the section on SG is inaccurate in a way. Personally, I think the real problem is with the main article on density itself - which also seems disputed. Perhaps the best would be to include there my Specific gravity in a section on SG, with an expansion on relative density based on some of the Relative density article? what say you? Again, on a personal note, I much prefer articles which begin with a short and to the point definition of a given subject, with supplementary material following - e.g. historical info, ref's etc. e.g: Archimedes with his alleged Eureka .... --Pae nor 07:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue discussion on your user page.+mwtoews 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)