How to correct english in physical article

[exponent137]

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

[tiny-tim]

Can you give me links on forums, where I can correct grammar of the article by one to one sentence (i am not native speaker)? Maybe it is not necessary to find peoples with physical knowledge.

Any other suggestions?

Hi 137! :smile:

Try http://www.englishforums.com/search/physics.htm or http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&webtag=ab-grammar or anything else you find by googling "physics grammar"

or look at J. Eastwood's English Grammar Exercises published by the Oxford University Press and available free here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673768/English-Grammar-Exercises) :smile:

or just paste some of your work on this forum, and ask for corrections. :wink:

™

[exponent137]

Hi Tiny-Tim, thanks for answer.
So I please for correction of a few sentences from my article, that I will see where a typical errors are.

Duff discussed the conversion factors cx, cy, and cz between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, as the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors cx, cy, and cz are really mainly unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us that similarly as the height has the same unit as the width, the time unit could be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and its value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

[tiny-tim]

Hi exponent137! :smile:
Hi Tiny-Tim, thanks for answer.
So I please for correction of a few sentences from my article, that I will see where a typical errors are.

(So please would you correct a few sentences from my article, so that I can see where my typical errors are.)

Duff discussed (we usually use the present tense when referring to another text … "discusses", "obtains", …) the conversion factors cx, cy, and cz between rectangular lengths in space (x, y, z) (Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)). He obtained conversion factors, which are, of course, equal to one [1]. He compared c, ((as)) the conversion factor between time and distance, with these conversion factors. The conversion factors cx, cy, and cz are really (mainly either they're unnecessary or they're not… make up your mind!) unnecessary, because space is isotropic. Bur furthermore, he tried to tell us (uhh? either he did tell us or he didn't! … do you mean "he argued"?) that (similarly) just as (the) height has the same unit as (the) width, the time unit (could) can be the same as the length unit. He thinks that c is only a conversion unit, which is not necessary in calculations and (its) whose value could be equal to 1.

But sometimes it is important to differentiate, between what a width is and what a length is, or what an angle between directions is.

In truth, Einstein's four dimensional space-time is not completely isotropic. An example of anisotropy is indicated already by the formula:
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 ; (2.1)

™ :wink:

[Pinu7]

Blast! englishforums.com, our biggest rival. LOL

[exponent137]

So, Tiny_Tim very thanks for this.
I read the next sentence:
"The Pi's satisfy local field equations."
But I prefer:
"The Pis satisfy local field equations."
because " ' " stands for posesive forms but above it is only a plural form.

[tiny-tim]

Hi exponent137! :smile:
"The Pi's satisfy local field equations." …

hmm … you've started a very controversial topic. :biggrin:

Some people think that merely adding an s when forming the plural of an "unnatural" word sometimes looks ridiculous and misleading, and so they prefer to insert an apostrophe.

For example "Don't forget your F = mas", or "2πrs", seems to me difficult to understand, compared with "Don't forget your F = ma's", or "2πr's".

An inserted apostrophe is certainly correct in phrases such as "Mind your p's and q's!" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer%27s_apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plura ls

But it's usually wrong … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer%27s_apostrophe#Greengrocers.27_apostrophes

In this case, I agree with you :smile: … so long as "s" is not a symbol already being used, "The Pis satisfy local field equations" is clear and unambiguous, and an apostrophe is unnecessary.

(but it's near the borderline, and so I would only call it unnecessary, rather than wrong! :wink:)

[HallsofIvy]

So, Tiny_Tim very thanks for this.
I read the next sentence:
"The Pi's satisfy local field equations."
But I prefer:
"The Pis satisfy local field equations."
because " ' " stands for posesive forms but above it is only a plural form.
I personally prefer either 'Pi's or "Pi"s.

[turin]

I'm with HallsofIvy: just wrap the object in quotes first, then pluralize. However, another consideration is that, if you're LaTeXing the document, and the object is in math mode, then it will be in a different font, and then the "s" will appear distinct. So, I also suggest an alternative: put the object to be pluralized in a distinct font.

I wouldn't even bother to read an article that said, "Don't forget your F = mas," or, "Don't forget your F = ma's," either way. I guess what I'm saying is, if there is an alternative that doesn't even require pluralization, such as, "Don't forget Newton's Second Law," then you should use that.