![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Actually, F = dp/dt ( Newtonian Force Equation ) Then dp/dt = m * a, yet only when the mass is constant. The mass isn't constant when dealing with many systems, such as rockets when considering the rocket to be the material inside the hard boundary of the rocket, material traveling at approximately the same velocity.
Wikipedia Classical Mechanics articles have a CM tag box on the right, with "F = m a" in it. I think it's silly that the formula used to symbolize classical mechanics is not accurate in many cases. However, I can't come up with a better one, so I am not proposing any changes here. Perhaps someone else can think of a better formula or other byline.
I bring this up because I would hate for people to be misguided, especially if they are trying to understand rocket dynamics. Trying-bold ( talk) 23:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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) 11:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
uoioioioioioioioioioioioioioioio.com.net.@gmail 47.17.255.96 ( talk) 23:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
the unreferenced paragraph starting with "A key concept of inertial frames is the method for identifying" makes at least two dubious claims. first that acceleration is involved in Einstein relativity. second that stellar fixed coordinates have some meaning in mechanics. absent citations I believe both claims are incorrect. I propose to delete or significantly modify the paragraph. Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The current "Description of the theory" is really a description of Newtonian mechanics. As presented it distorts the over all topic.
I think the overall topic would be better presented by lifting "Branches" to the spot where Description lives and expanding the subheadings to summary sections linking Main. The current "Description" material would shrink to a paragraph, with possible movement to subarticles. Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Actually, F = dp/dt ( Newtonian Force Equation ) Then dp/dt = m * a, yet only when the mass is constant. The mass isn't constant when dealing with many systems, such as rockets when considering the rocket to be the material inside the hard boundary of the rocket, material traveling at approximately the same velocity.
Wikipedia Classical Mechanics articles have a CM tag box on the right, with "F = m a" in it. I think it's silly that the formula used to symbolize classical mechanics is not accurate in many cases. However, I can't come up with a better one, so I am not proposing any changes here. Perhaps someone else can think of a better formula or other byline.
I bring this up because I would hate for people to be misguided, especially if they are trying to understand rocket dynamics. Trying-bold ( talk) 23:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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) 11:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
uoioioioioioioioioioioioioioioio.com.net.@gmail 47.17.255.96 ( talk) 23:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
the unreferenced paragraph starting with "A key concept of inertial frames is the method for identifying" makes at least two dubious claims. first that acceleration is involved in Einstein relativity. second that stellar fixed coordinates have some meaning in mechanics. absent citations I believe both claims are incorrect. I propose to delete or significantly modify the paragraph. Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The current "Description of the theory" is really a description of Newtonian mechanics. As presented it distorts the over all topic.
I think the overall topic would be better presented by lifting "Branches" to the spot where Description lives and expanding the subheadings to summary sections linking Main. The current "Description" material would shrink to a paragraph, with possible movement to subarticles. Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)