Template talk:Classical mechanics

message: Hi, I just created this template for fun, but I feel it's not very accurate and exaustive. Feel free to improve it as you wish and/or leave comments on my discussion page. Thanks. Frédérick Lacasse (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of template

message: Newton didn't have vectors, so perhaps it would be nice to use his original notation of F = \dot p. On the other hand, however, Newton's second is more familiar to most as F = ma or F = m\vec a. Perhaps the current notation is a pleasant compromise? — gogobera (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's notation 

message: I compiled a list of all articles that I've found related to Classical Mechanics. I think it is important start indexing/listing all the articles that have direct relation with Classical Mechanics. Knowing what articles are out there will force editors to start thinking about the individual articles in context. This will provide structure to the topic of mechanics, avoiding duplications and improving the overall reading of the articles.
The current form of this section is not the way it should be. It is just a first step. I better way to present the navigation box should be thought and discussed. For example: Do we need sections on Dynamics of particles, Dynamics of rigid bodies, statics, etc... Comments? - Sanpaz (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that this list of articles should be included in a navigation box for Dynamics, the same way that Continuum mechanics and Statistical mechanics have an individual navigation box. That means other Branches that do not have a navigation box need one. I will try to create a Dynamics navbox - Sanpaz (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of articles (Article section) 

message: I initially found this template confusing in the articles it is used because it seemed that the equation which is shown had something directly to do with the article. It took a moment to realize that it is just being used symbolically to indicate a classical mechanics article.  So I assume other people might also find this confusing (maybe more or less than myself!)
I suggest therefore that either the presentation of the formula be changed so that it looks more like a symbol (I'm not an art student however...) or something else be used instead.
Thanks Dhollm (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template is confusing when reading articles it is used in 

message: Isn't Fluid Mechanics (or Fluid Dynamics) a branch of Classical mechanics in its own right? Why do we not include it? --BozMo talk 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fluid Mechanics is part of Continuum mechanics  sanpaz (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Not in any department I have worked in but technically I suppose...--BozMo talk 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluid Mechanics? 

message: I am of the opinion that Cauchy should be included in this template, as he originally formulated the stress tensor, now fundamental in solid and fluid mechanics. Any thoughts? Thudso (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cauchy 

message: Ok. Let's first define which ones are Fundamental concepts (instead of calling them Basic concepts): Space, time,  velocity, speed, acceleration, gravity, mass, force,  momentum, angular momentum, inertia, moment of inertia, reference frame, energy, mechanical work, virtual work, D'Alembert's principle.
Please add or delete some.
But, for me these are fundamental quantities or concepts for classical mechanics. Taking any o those away does not make sense. For example: Including force, and not momentum?. Or Energy, and not work?
I never subscribe to the idea of too complex or to advance for readers. Things are the way the are. Objects in the universe have inertia, you cannot hide that concept from readers just because you think is too advance. The way you explain the concepts inside the article is the way you make things clear to readers. sanpaz (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental concepts

message: What are the core topics of Classical mechanics? First, motion comes to mind. So, Motion, Newton's laws of motion, Equations of motion (I disagree with the title of that article), Circular motion, Uniform circular motion, Non-uniform circular motion, Harmonic oscillator, Simple harmonic motion.
Now, all other links are part of some or all of these motions.
I know that right now these core topics are too many. But the problem with so many links is due to the fact that a lot of those article should not exist but should be part of one single article. For example, centripetal force, centrifugal force, angular velocity, angular acceleration, Uniform circular motion, Non-uniform circular motion, should be part once single article called Circular motion. But that is another big issue that cannot be solved right now in this template. So the only thing we can do at this moment is to include all articles related to circular motion. sanpaz (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Topics 

message: The infobox carries the equation F=d/dt(mv) as an illustration. This is not helpful in the article Kinematics, which is described as the study of motion without consideration of the forces that cause the motion. The force equation causes confusion between Kinematics and Kinetics. Could we have some other illustration? Perhaps a piston rod, some gears, a pendulum, or whatever. --LA2 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree--I ran across it in another article where it was not helpful.  Given that your comment has been ignored for two years, I might go ahead and boldly delete it.  Ideas:  A picture of Newton?  One could use some random diagram such as the parabolic trajectory in Classical mechanics, but that's too specific and would surely be confusing in some other article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing illustration 

message: I am interested in the justification for including Horrocks and Clairaut as significant contributors to the field of classical mechanics. Admittedly, I have not come across either of them in all my study of classical mechanics (the prominence of all the others is quite evident). Their pages here do not suggest any major contributions, no does their lack of fame - if someone can provide sources however, I'm perfectly willing to change this view. Noldorin (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for including [[Horrocks]] and [[Clairaut]] in list of scientists? 

message: I think that the Hungarian Scientist Loránd Eötvös should be included as one of the scientist for the general relativity portal. he was cited by einstein in his works and has a university named after him i think he should be included
72.219.176.60 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Too late on, looking at the other examples in the grid. However, a discussion may provide a separate outcome. Mdann52 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 21 June 2013 

message: There is no "classical mechanics" there is just old physics and quantum physics. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical 

message: The list of formulations makes a reference to an article with clear neutrality issues. That list should only point to notable formulations that are on par in their fundamental impact with the Lagrangian or Hamilton-Jacobi formulations (as some examples). I suggest the removal of the reference to the Udwadia-Kalaba equation for lack of notability. Reading the linked article, it looks like an attempted promotional push. As is well known, there is no unique formulation of analytical mechanics and the list should only point of especially notable formulations such as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The reference to the little-known Udwadia-Kalaba equation in the same vein as the other substantially more notable ones is inappropriate.
- V madhu (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to article with neutrality issues 

message: I think the scientists in the column should include Pierre Louis Maupertuis. 131.225.45.142 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  09:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022 

message: I think the thumbnail of that topic needs to be changed, that is F=d(mv)/dt, as this form of Newton's second law is known to be incorrect in the general case (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00052611). This is a very common mistake that keeps being perpetuated, and that thumbnail does not help. It could be changed for F=ma for example. 78.124.168.246 (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Thumbnail should be changed