Talk:Timeline of thermodynamics

message: what am not understanding here is why jagged 85 listed the conservation of mass in thermodynamics.  First of all Tusi didn't develop the concpet of conservation of mass but merely stated some early ideas on it, but thats a whole other topic.  The conservation of matter has nothing to do with thermodynamics, since its not mass that cannot be destroyed but mearly that energy is always conserved.  Which leads me to think that jagged is implying that somehow this relates to conservation of energy, which it doesnt, it would be like saying people that studied light were also somehow studying and aware of electromagnetism which they were not since that required a much more deeper understanding.  Further more the idea of energy and mass being related was only discovered in the 20th century by Einstein with E = mc2, and the advent of quantum mechanics.  Up until that point people, even with the creation of thermodynamics in the 1800, discovery of conservation of energy, and proper ideas on energy and heat, no one made the connection that matter and energy were related.  One of the truimphs of 20th century physics is the realization that the 2 are connected.  What makes this inclusion even more suprising is that not only is the ideas of Tusi very vague there was absolutely no ideas on energy and heat in the islamic world for starters, and how that would in any shape or form related to matter, since even islamic ideas on matter were philisophical and incorrect not to mention the total absence of ideas on energy.  This pretty much even destroys the idea that this is even somehow a pre-thermodynamic idea, which influenced the advent of thermodynamics.  Lavoisier, himself after actaully discovering the conservation mass made absolutely no connection between the conservation of energy and mass and for that matter no one did until the 20th century.  Notice jagged how in the timeline of thermodynamics before your ridiculous inclusion, the conservation of mass is not included in the original timeline, thats beacuse it has nothing to do with the conservation of energy and no such connection were made, in fact they were outright rejected not to mention no ideas on energy even existed in the islamic world.    Look up conservaton of energy page there is nothing there listed about conservation of mass or even how the idea influencd the conservation of energy, since the connection was not made, rejected even with the advent of thermodynamics.  Same thing goes for the conservation of mass page, there no listing their of it playing a role in influencing the idea of conservation energy because that required a muh more deeper understanding, which how tusi could have even influenced the topic since neither he nor anyone else during the middle ages had the faintist clue about energy or even philisophical ideas on the topic.
so why did you list on this timeline here, honetly you give knew meaning to the word spin doctor cause you just take things and you spin them to no end.  So what this all mean, it means thats gonna be deleted from the list, since the orginal authors of the page clearly realized what i just stated, that knowing conservation of mass does not mean you somehow know about conservation of energy or even influenced it.
All i have to say is why?  Thrill us with your acumen jagged
Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do atomism and the classical elements have to do with thermodynamics? Jagged 85 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: What a coincidence... I just edited that Avicenna part before even reading your reply. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I included the Arabic contributions to the prehistory of thermodynamics for the same reason you choose to include the Greek contributions. Why did you remove Al-Farabi despite the fact that his experiments are clearly described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy source? I sense double-standards coming from you... How is Al-Farabi's experiments on the void any less relevant than Aristotle's theory on the void? The Greek contributions are also irrelevant to the prehistory of thermodynamics according to your own twisted logic. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You seem rather overly annoyed; just shrug off personal remarks instead of escalating and things will go better; see WP:NPA.  Maybe you should take some of that back, and explain more calmly what the issue is.  I've restored the deleted item, as it appears from the sourced quote to be relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I find it very difficult to understand exactly what Tomasz is upset about.  Frotz (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my talk page if you want to know what he's upset about. He seems somewhat upset about me insulting him back (something I rarely ever do), even though he himself has been barraging me with personal insults and ad hominem attacks for months on end. If it makes him feel any better, I'll take back what I said. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To his credit, I don't see anything particularly ethnocentric about his position.  It's just incoherent rage.  Frotz (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Tomasz, I am still not convinced by your interpretation of the quote. From what I see, it looks like the quote is saying that it became heated as a consequence of the movement and friction between the air and the sphere of the moon, and that there is less fire near the poles due to the slackening of the movements there. If you honestly feel that I'm the one misinterpreting the quote, then explain more clearly what the quote is supposed to mean based on your own interpretation instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. The explanation of heat given by Biruni may not be accurate by today's standards, but it's certainly more accurate than the ancient explanations given on this page, and therefore more relevant. As for the refrigerated coil, I added it as an entry in relation to the topic of heat in general. Also, I used a chemistry book as a reference for it as well, not just aromatherapy books. I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be included in the timeline in relation to the prehistory of thermodynamics, since this article could really do with an expansion, but it doesn't really make a difference to me whether it stays or goes. However, the Biruni statement is staying for reasons I've already given, unless you can convince otherwise. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: conservation of energy

message: yes of course my true agenda, it was only matter of time that you resorted to the old euro centrism argument, yet you still cant answer and single thing can you, what does steam distillation, supposed refrigerator coils have to do with thermodynamics, in fact were does it in any of your sources say this has to do with thermodynamics, were does it say that in any source.  As for the heat her's the quote
The earth and the water form one globe, surrounded on all sides by air. Then, since much of the air is in contact with the sphere of the moon, it becomes heated in consequence of the movement and friction of the parts in contact. Thus there is produced fire, which surrounds the air, less in amount in the proximity of the poles owing to the slackening of the movement there
thats were my info comes from you fool, its clearly stated right their, learn how to read agenda driven distorter.  The very sentence at the beginning states that the earth and water from one globe that are surrounded by air.  That air is in contact with the moon, the air becomes heated because of its movement and friction in contact with the moon.  You must have a serious problem understanding the english language if cant understand that.  These ideas have nothing to do with heat as motion or even resemble anything that has to do with heat from a thermodynamic consideration.  Like i said its not even implied by the source.  As for the other argument, as stated before your not listing things on the history of thermo. unless it comes from sources that deal with that topic.  Using books on aroma therapy having nothing to do with it.  The points you try to insert on this page just get more absurd every time.  Your responses consist of pure ad homenim responses.  You cant actually refute what am saying because its clear its true, its clear none of your sources have anything to so with thermo., they don't even try to make the connection, and most importantly you totally twist and turn them to suit what you want them to mean.  Of course am driven by an agenda, of course cause am the one that posting inaccurate claims, am the one making posts on a topic that has to do with the history of science but using books an aromatherapy and then using to imply things that even those very sources dont make the connection to.  Jagged for once in your in ur life try defending ur arguments, not responding with responses that divert away from the issue. whether Dycklion reverts matters for little since this is'nt a page what certain people think about a topic but whats actually true.  What am saying is refutable anyone that knows anything about thermodynamics knows that.  Before you make the worthless contributions that you make you should actually read a book on the history of thermodynamics, so you can see what's actually important, and their are plenty of books on the topic.  Not going on the thermo. page and seeing hey theirs sentence on heat and movement, let me just see look for a sentences in Islamic sources with the word heat and movement within 3-4 sentences and irrespective if their context and post them here.  Or wow ideas on a vacuum, well lets just see what the Islamic sources say on that and digress into paragraphs about on this page and call it a contribution, when does things have little do with contributions or even influences.  You wanna know about the history of thermodynamics, here;s the title of a book on the topic, A History of Thermodynamics: The Doctrine of Energy and Entropy  Read that and tell me if that book makes any of the points your making or if it even discuss the things that u seem content at spending paragraphs on.  That book and others only make glancing acknowledgments to what ur posting such as Aristotle believing in natures abhorrence for a vacuum.   As stated before what the hell steam distillation have to do with the thermodynamics, am at a loss, and refrigeration coils, well that one is really out their and what sources stated this has something to do with thermo, not the ones u listed surely. The short answer is nothing, but find out for yourself.  These idiot posts are deleted again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 
:You seem rather overly annoyed; just shrug off personal remarks instead of escalating and things will go better; see WP:NPA.  Maybe you should take some of that back, and explain more calmly what the issue is.  I've restored the deleted item, as it appears from the sourced quote to be relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very difficult to understand exactly what Tomasz is upset about.  Frotz (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my talk page if you want to know what he's upset about. He seems somewhat upset about me insulting him back (something I rarely ever do), even though he himself has been barraging me with personal insults and ad hominem attacks for months on end. If it makes him feel any better, I'll take back what I said. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To his credit, I don't see anything particularly ethnocentric about his position.  It's just incoherent rage.  Frotz (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Tomasz, I am still not convinced by your interpretation of the quote. From what I see, it looks like the quote is saying that it became heated as a consequence of the movement and friction between the air and the sphere of the moon, and that there is less fire near the poles due to the slackening of the movements there. If you honestly feel that I'm the one misinterpreting the quote, then explain more clearly what the quote is supposed to mean based on your own interpretation instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. The explanation of heat given by Biruni may not be accurate by today's standards, but it's certainly more accurate than the ancient explanations given on this page, and therefore more relevant. As for the refrigerated coil, I added it as an entry in relation to the topic of heat in general. Also, I used a chemistry book as a reference for it as well, not just aromatherapy books. I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be included in the timeline in relation to the prehistory of thermodynamics, since this article could really do with an expansion, but it doesn't really make a difference to me whether it stays or goes. However, the Biruni statement is staying for reasons I've already given, unless you can convince otherwise. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: thermodynamic history

message: how about some real info on thermodynamics ?J8079s (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rankine 

message: Do crack pot theories really belong here? J8079s (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example of increasing entropy, yes Moletrouser (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  crack pot 

message: In Micrographia Hooke wrote this:
:And this, I conceive, to be nothing else but a certain pulse or shake of heat; for Heat being nothing else but a very brisk and vehement agitation of the parts of a body (as I have elswhere made probable) the parts of a body are thereby made so loose from one another, that they easily move any way, and become fluid.
Can anyone point to the elswhere to which he refers? 
Moletrouser (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooke and the kinetic theory of heat