Talk:Pierre Louis Maupertuis
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hard/incompressible bodies
editThe text says:
"the first that live force conservation did not apply to so-called ‘hard’ bodies, bodies that were totally incompressible, whereas the other two conservation principles did; the second was that live force was defined by the product of mass and square of velocity"
This must be the reverse of what is meant, as it is perfectly incompressible bodies for which kinetic energy, or "live force", is conserved, in elastic collisions. See also http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html.
The quoted text should say:
"the first that live force conservation only applied to so-called ‘hard’ bodies, bodies that were totally incompressible, whereas the other two conservation principles applied generally; the second was that live force was defined by the product of mass and square of velocity"
Unless there is a source that shows that the opponents of the Leibnizians actually believed the incorrect statement in the original text?
Later we have:
"Today the concept of a ‘hard’ body is rejected; and mass times the square of velocity is just twice kinetic energy so modern mechanics reserves a major role for the inheritor quantity of ‘live force’.
For Maupertuis, however, it was important to retain the concept of the hard body. And the beauty of his principle of least action was that it applied just as well to hard and elastic bodies."
This would be better as below:
"Today the concept of a ‘hard’ body is replaced by that of elastic and inelastic collisions; and mass times the square of velocity is just twice kinetic energy so modern mechanics reserves a major role for the inheritor quantity of ‘live force’.
For Maupertuis, however, it was important to retain the distinction between hard bodies and the rest. And the beauty of his principle of least action was that it applied just as well to both types of bodies."