Template talk:Classical mechanics

Edit request on 21 June 2013

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)

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)

Classical

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

Reference to article with neutrality issues

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

I think the scientists in the column should include Pierre Louis Maupertuis. 131.225.45.142 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  09:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thumbnail should be changed

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)

You don't get to change the status quo and demand it be left in place. As I have maintained, $\mathbf {F} ={\frac {d}{dt}}(m\mathbf {v} )$ is the most general form of Newton's second law. It is what you use to work with variable-mass systems like the rocket equation. It is also how you relate Newton's second law with Lagrange's and Hamilton's equations of motion. You can find this information either implicitly or explicitly in a calculus text (Stewart's) or a classical mechanics text (Goldstein). Nerd271 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, @M Facchin:, I have already provided sources. These are well-known textbooks. In the case of a system of variable-mass, it is that form that applies. If you are thinking of a rocket, the second term has a negative sign because the mass is being ejected in the opposite direction. Nerd271 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The more detailed thread I mentioned is here Talk:Classical mechanics M Facchin (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)