Talk:Vis viva
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Obsolete?
editHow is this an "obsolete theory"? Vis viva is perhaps an "obsolete name" for energy, but the theory is not obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.231.130 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Kinetic energy
editIntro says "It can be thought of as a type of kinetic energy" but 'a type of' seems misleading; wouldn't it be more accurate to say "It was the first [known] description of what we now call kinetic energy" ? Rod57 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except for the later addition of 1/2, I would say, yes, it is what we now call kinetic energy. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree: edit it please.Stgoetz (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, done. - Rod57 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Leibniz vs. Newton or conservation of energy vs. conservation of momentum
editimho this sentence is not correct:
"...represents an accurate statement of the conservation of kinetic energy in elastic collisions, and is a consequence of the conservation of momentum..."
its not a consequence. Both conservations are independent facts and consequence of the Homogeneity of time and space. see Noether's_theorem
I think its not neccessary to cite the original History of energy here and propose to delete that part.
Stgoetz (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- This must be a typo. It was first introduced by Michael Price in this edit: [1]. --Amble (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As A Supernatural Life-Giving Force?
editI came to this term via Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life?", where he mentions the historical usage of the term as a means to describe the Élan vital, of sorts, that characterizes life. Would this be of value to the article? 216.21.161.163 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Descartes did not "advance the conservation of momentum"
editThe "Overview" section states multiple times that Descartes, along with Newton, advanced "conservation of momentum." This is not true. Descartes asserted that total quantity of mass x speed (the scalar, not velocity the vector) is conserved. This concept is drastically different from Newton's idea of conservation of momentum (mass x velocity) and is due to the fact that Descartes believed space to be completely filled with matter without any vacuums. When Leibniz disagreed with Descartes (not with Newton), it was on this premise. The "Overview" section makes a common mistake in its description of the controversy. [1]