Talk:Dynamics (mechanics)

message: external causes or internal or both?
91.51.206.181 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting question. What would constitute an internal cause of motion? Or in what context? In other words, can you be more specific or give an example? Then maybe this question could be answered. Other than that, personally,  I can only percieve external causes all the way down to the sub atomic level. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes of motion 

message: Kinetics (dynamics) is currently a redirect back to this article, which is quite annoying if you are trying to navigate there. -- Beland 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: I came across this page and was very surprised to see that so little has been written about this topic.  I've rated it as a stub article of top importance, considering that undergraduate entry level physics always starts with a semester of dynamics.  Since there are many good physics articles, I would imagine it won't be too hard to piece together something that is at least B class.  EMBaero (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of this article

message: The current state of all articles related to Dynamics is not the best. I have encountered many pages that talk about the same thing or are related to each other and are not organized in a structured and logical manner. These are: Dynamics, kinetics, Kinematics, Equations of motion, SUVAT_equations, Displacement (vector), Acceleration, Velocity, Speed, Relative velocity, Rigid body dynamics, rigid body, Uniform circular motion, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force, Circular motion, Simple Harmonic Motion, Harmonic oscillator, Vibration, Damping, Damping ratio, Pendulum (mathematics), Rotational speed, Angular acceleration, Angular velocity, Angular frequency, Angular displacement, Rotational motion, Coriolis, Momentum, Angular momentum, Newton's law of motion, D'Alembert's principle, Virtual work, Friction, Mechanical work, Kinetic energy, Potential energy etc... (more need to be found). My proposal is to start from the Dynamics Page and structured the whole topic around this article. In this article the terms of Kinematics and Kinetics are explained and links to their corresponding sub-pages are provided (Particle Kinematics and Kinetics, and Rigid body kinematics and kinetics). Comments Sanpaz (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good proposal, but a big project. Brews ohare (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to fix the articles about Dynamics??? 

message: Thanks for the nice revisions, Brews ohare.  I'll rewrite the opening statement to be: "Dynamics is the study of ...," and move the "branch" talk to history section. (Similar treatment can be applied to kinetics.)  Hope this can emphasis on the common use today while preserving historic context.
Sillyvalley (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just glad that the article is active, doing more diligence.  I disagree that the foundation of dynamics is postulated laws, unless we are talking purely about analytical dynamics - I can't imagine the two as equivalent.  This is the same problem (more serious one) I have with the current electrodynamic article.  Analytical dynamics (or anything else for that matter) is effectively theoretical.  It cannot be the whole of dynamics. Sillyvalley (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study vs "branch" 

message: A quick view of Greenwood 1977 convinced me that this is clearly a treatment of analytical dynamics alone, even though its title is "classical dynamics"; it is classical in the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian sense, not in the physics sense.  Without a qualifier, dynamics concerns physics, which is based on empirical laws despite of application of mathematical models.  I know that the difference between "empirical" and "postulated" can sometimes border on being philosophical, but a die-hard physicist wouldn't take a pure analytical approach.  As long as it has not been disproved by empirical data and as long as the possibility exists for empirical data to disprove it, it is an empirical law. (Think Aristotle and Galileo.)  But I don't have a suitable text at hand to make revisions.  Hope some die-hard physicist can jump in. Sillyvalley (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are concerned about the general meaning of the term "dynamics" a disambiguation page should be set up. It could refer to electrodynamics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and so forth, as well as analytical dynamics. The present page is in fact about analytical dynamics, in the sense of the preeminent source Whittaker. You seem to be worried that the article over stresses "mathematical physics" at the expense of empirical law. However, the subject is mathematical physics, though, as with all mathematical physics, the examples are related to empirical matters, such as planetary motion, precessing tops, and so forth. However, no attempt is made in this field to actually discuss any details of physical observation or experiment, experimental errors, experimental design etc. That fact of mathematical physics (and this article) need raise no fears about confusing hypothesis with empirical law. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: In fact, it seems a disambiguation page like this is Dynamics, and does distinguish between the various meanings referring to the pages mentioned above. Therefore I have removed the lead-in sentence on dynamics as a general matter. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looks like a good solution is to set up a Dynamics (mathematical physics) page, and add an entry to Dynamics disambiguation.  After all, this page is titled "Dynamics (physics)", not "Dynamics (mathematics).  Would this work? Sillyvalley (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamics vs analytical dynamics 

message: I was mistaken in referencing the Relativistic dynamics page.  But there is actually a citation in the disambiguation page in support of the view that some consider the simple application of special theory of relativity to classical dynamics as relativistic dynamics.  This page shares the responsibility to elaborate these views.  It is not an unnecessary repetition. Sillyvalley (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic dynamics 

message: Please see new page Analytical dynamics and revision of Dynamics disambiguation page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dynamics (mechanics). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110412013636/http://www.brighthub.com:80/engineering/mechanical/articles/111610.aspx to http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/111610.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is very important for design of automobile and aerial planes Pkbiradar77 (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses 

message: This article provides no value as is. Classical mechanics links Analytical dynamics which is slightly better than this article. 
I think we should: 
# merge this content (maybe none is worth while) into Analytical dynamics
# rename the result to Dynamics (mechanics).
Johnjbarton (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with or into [[Analytical dynamics]]  

message: The discussion around merging Dynamics (mechanics) with Analytical dynamics and the subsequent edits to classical mechanics, analytical mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, leads me to a new proposal:
* Redirect Dynamics (mechanics) to classical mechanics.
** I've copied that part of the current content of "Dynamics (mechanics)" worth having in other articles.
** This topic name may or may not be Newtonian, but many older sources, before "classical mechanics" became "classical", consider dynamics to be the mechanics of forces.  In our current organization, this could mean any one of a number of pages. So it makes more sense to direct readers to the overview which explicitly discusses "dynamics".
* Redirect analytical dynamics to analytical mechanics.
** Again I've copied what seems important. I did not copy the "Fundamental importance..." section.
** I think for the most part these are synonyms, which is why the 'analytical dynamics' page is weak now.
@Sgubaldo @XOR'easter @ReyHahn Sorry for the double take.
Johnjbarton (talk) Johnjbarton (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for analytical dynamics to redirect to analytical mechanics: the page is meaningless as of now and analytical mechanics covers any dynamics.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

text: *Support - As ReyHahn said, both pages are pretty meaningless in their current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: redirect this article to [[Classical mechanics]].