Talk:Mechanics

Comment

The intro is florid. We are only told what this article is about in the fifth sentence and, even then, hype reigns.

Created sections

I agree with the unsigned criticism above. I made a first crack at sorting the text and dividing it into sections and layout in bullets. There are still florid sentences which can easilly be whacked down without loss of content. Next up to bat please step forward. Tom Lougheed 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

exact science

Article: "Classical mechanics has especially often been viewed as a model for other so-called exact sciences. Essential in this respect is the relentless use of mathematics in theories, as well as the decisive role played by experiment in generating and testing them."

exact science sounds like "scientific science" to many people, including me, I don't think it needs to be mentioned in here. --Fs 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

statics

Statics is a branch of mechanics so it's strictly incorrect to define mechanics as the study of motion. I'll try another form of words.RDT2 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vector notation

The articles on mechanics arbitrarily use two different notations for vector quantities. Some articles, e.g. velocity and angular momentum, use bold face; while others, like classical mechanics, use over arrow notation. I suggest we try to adopt a consistent notation. The mathematics article on vectors uses bold face, and I believe it would be best to use the same notation in both mathematics and physics. However, the most important is to use a consistent notation in all articles on mechanics. DanielEriksson87 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

classical mechanics

it says on this page that classical mechanics is older then written history, yet classical mechcanics originated with Newton's laws of motion, i mean ya people discusses ideas about motion, but it was only Newton who formulated the correct ones, for macroscopic matter that is, so i think that sentence needs to be changed. Plus classical mechanics is always wrtitten in books to have begun with Newton soooooo. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

préinscrit

bon jour,je suis un étudian en tunisie et je voudrais m'inscrire a votre ecole.je veus tous les ranségnemen nécecaire pour préparer mon dossié.mérci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.245.49 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Boiled egg

I can't find an explanation of the classic experiment of spinning an egg to see if it's hard-boiled or not. A link in Boiled egg would help. Simesa (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

physical properties is more correct

does anybody have an idea why the physical body article has a "metaphysics" box at the end????

anyway physical properties is actually the better definition owing to the fact that we got fluid (gas,liquid) mechanics, solid mechanics, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics in tandem with mechanics. i will change it to physical properties as that is a more wholesome definition.Physics4every1 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sold that your modifications are a better definition. Based on google book search I found that the following books define mechanics as:

• "Mechanics is the branch of science which deals with the motion of material objects." [1]
• "Mechanics is the science which treats of the effect of forces upon the form or motion of bodies." [2]
• "...the kinematics and the dynamics of a finite number of mass points that are subject to internal, and possibly external, forces..." [3]
• "Mechanics is defined by Kirchhoff as the Science of Motion...Motion is the change of position; that which moves is known as 'matter'." [4]
• "Mechanics is that branch of physical science which deals with forces and their effects." [5]

Except for the last entry, all of the other refer to mechanics effecting mass or matter. I feel that your definition is too vague; for instance, mechanics doesn't deal with how forces can affect strain hardening and increase a materials tensile strength, however a based on your definition that would be included because tensile strength is a "physical property". Wizard191 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

if you look up the mechanical properties of materials you will find the answer. it deals with everything.Physics4every1 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow that answer at all. Are you saying that mechanics deals with everything? Because it most certainly does not. Wizard191 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mechanics overview table

For some reason this table was hiding in miniscule size in the Classical Mechanics article. Somebody has spent a lot of time preparing it, so if it is not incorrect, it deserves a place here. Of course if it needs expansion, correction, or updating that is another matter.LouisBB (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 10 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

computer

computer is just a machine which which takes input as data manipulates it as process and gives output as information.computer is mainly divide . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.141.190 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro to narrow

The intro narrows down the idea of mechanics to solely "classical mechanics" - implying ceratin idealized bodies. However, there are more fields of mechanics such as fluid mechanics or quantum mechanics. These, erroneously are not covered by the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.92.46 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20061006212949/http://www.esm.vt.edu/ to http://www.esm.vt.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070601020244/http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/ to http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Introductory Mechanics

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)