Talk:Energetics

message: I added the NPOV tag because significant modern criticisms of this entire field are not reported in the article. See Talk:Emergy#Neutrality. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because that is not a criteria for putting on the tag. The information here is sourced, but yes it needs citations or refs. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The image :File:Howard T Odum.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Howard T Odum.jpg

message: I find this article very confusing. The intro starts out by labeling energetics a pseudoscience, but never clearly defends this statement, and then goes on to say that it encompasses several clearly non-pseudoscientific disciplines such as chemistry, and that it can even be synonymous with thermodynamics. This article does not clearly define what energetics actually is, perhaps because there is no accepted definition and it is not a true field of study. Any thoughts? If anyone out there can clearly define energetics, you should take a crack at re-writing the lead. MYCETEAE - talk 05:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I wouldn't say that this was pseudoscience at all, but application of thermodynamic techniques to much larger systems. Gizmoguy (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: Perhaps the question I'm about to raise is better suited to the "fundamental law" wiki page, however since a phrase appears here, and in unique form, I feel it's acceptable to address the issue.
My concern is the phrase "Like in all science, whether or not a theorem or principle is considered a fundamental law appears to depend on how many people agree to such a proposition." ( in the "Aims" section). Not only does this include weasel words, in this case "appears", but it misses the actual difference between a theory and a law in science. First the weasel words. In science we use peer review, so whether or not something is accepted never "appears" to depend on the consensus, it DOES depend on the review and consensus of peers. Second, a law has the same validity, carries the same scientific & social importance/weight as a theory. The true distinction lies in that laws are theories which are modeled mathematically. Note that the "sufficiency" implied in the original quoted statement can apply to either a law, or a theory, and as such, is not the distinguishing factor in their distinction. I agree with previous Talk comments that think this article needs to be completely rewritten, and hope this particular little sentence gets proper treatment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyjoseph (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Vs Theory 

message: Energy is not a scalar. It's the time component of a vector, and momentum is the space component. The conservation laws of energy and momentum are part of the same law. This is very basic relativity, and has been known for over a hundred years. In all that time, has nobody notable criticized Villamil's putative distinction between them?
166.137.101.155 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure Villamil had had one drink too many when he came up with those theories, and whoever added the material, was in a similar condition. Also material from Odum is a fan club brochure. The page is mostly non-science. A tensor a day... (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Villamil talking about?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Energetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618210518/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EN/ENERGETICS.htm to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EN/ENERGETICS.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219130453/http://energeticsday.ru/ to http://www.energeticsday.ru/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)