![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
external causes or internal or both? 91.51.206.181 ( talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Kinetics (dynamics) is currently a redirect back to this article, which is quite annoying if you are trying to navigate there. -- Beland 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I came across this page and was very surprised to see that so little has been written about this topic. I've rated it as a stub article of top importance, considering that undergraduate entry level physics always starts with a semester of dynamics. Since there are many good physics articles, I would imagine it won't be too hard to piece together something that is at least B class. EMBaero ( talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)EMBaero
The current state of all articles related to Dynamics is not the best. I have encountered many pages that talk about the same thing or are related to each other and are not organized in a structured and logical manner. These are: Dynamics, kinetics, Kinematics, Equations of motion, SUVAT_equations, Displacement (vector), Acceleration, Velocity, Speed, Relative velocity, Rigid body dynamics, rigid body, Uniform circular motion, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force, Circular motion, Simple Harmonic Motion, Harmonic oscillator, Vibration, Damping, Damping ratio, Pendulum (mathematics), Rotational speed, Angular acceleration, Angular velocity, Angular frequency, Angular displacement, Rotational motion, Coriolis, Momentum, Angular momentum, Newton's law of motion, D'Alembert's principle, Virtual work, Friction, Mechanical work, Kinetic energy, Potential energy etc... (more need to be found). My proposal is to start from the Dynamics Page and structured the whole topic around this article. In this article the terms of Kinematics and Kinetics are explained and links to their corresponding sub-pages are provided (Particle Kinematics and Kinetics, and Rigid body kinematics and kinetics). Comments Sanpaz ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice revisions, Brews ohare. I'll rewrite the opening statement to be: "Dynamics is the study of ...," and move the "branch" talk to history section. (Similar treatment can be applied to kinetics.) Hope this can emphasis on the common use today while preserving historic context. Sillyvalley ( talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sillyvalley: I believe three editors were editing the article at the same time. So I may have lost some of your changes inadvertently. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article to be briefer and to eliminate what I found to be somewhat misleading or even erroneous remarks about kinematics. It also appears that definitions from dictionaries and encyclopedias are to be avoided, as they do not reflect technical usage. It is preferable to refer to texts on the subject for definitions. Thus, the reference to the definition in Encyclopedia Brittanica is deleted as erroneous. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A quick view of Greenwood 1977 convinced me that this is clearly a treatment of analytical dynamics alone, even though its title is "classical dynamics"; it is classical in the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian sense, not in the physics sense. Without a qualifier, dynamics concerns physics, which is based on empirical laws despite of application of mathematical models. I know that the difference between "empirical" and "postulated" can sometimes border on being philosophical, but a die-hard physicist wouldn't take a pure analytical approach. As long as it has not been disproved by empirical data and as long as the possibility exists for empirical data to disprove it, it is an empirical law. (Think Aristotle and Galileo.) But I don't have a suitable text at hand to make revisions. Hope some die-hard physicist can jump in. Sillyvalley ( talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Made some effort to integrate previous revisions. I revived the structure set up in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dynamics_(physics)&oldid=239231754. Here are some of the considerations:
Otherwise new materials are largely left unchanged. If you folks agree, the dispute template can be removed. Sillyvalley ( talk) 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Opposed I see no advantage in merging these topics; the distinction between the two topics is more readily grasped if they are kept in separate articles. As a matter of usage, the engineering and physics communities seem to view the two topics differently. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are the facts disputed on this page? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an approach is to rename this page Analytical dynamics, add it to the disambiguation Dynamics page and delete Dynamics (physics)? Brews ohare ( talk) 15:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Moment of inertia is not an essential concept as mass. It is introduced to simplify motion of a rigid body so we can compose motion using the moment (of center of mass) and a rotational moment. At its bottom, Newton's law is at work. After adding the effect of all (infinitesimal) forces on all (infinitesimal) particles, there is no need for moment of inertia but that's a lot more labor.
When the geometric relationship among the particles is no longer constant (non-rigid), moment of inertia loses its convenience. So in places like elastic mechanics, fluid mechanics, and continuum mechanics in general, this concept is not used. Sillyvalley ( talk) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was mistaken in referencing the Relativistic dynamics page. But there is actually a citation in the disambiguation page in support of the view that some consider the simple application of special theory of relativity to classical dynamics as relativistic dynamics. This page shares the responsibility to elaborate these views. It is not an unnecessary repetition. Sillyvalley ( talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see new page Analytical dynamics and revision of Dynamics disambiguation page. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) hinlih fgfceyl98nn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.146.226 ( talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this comes from a previous discussion, but I do not see the need for having two separate articles about Dynamics and Analytical dynamics. They are very much about the same thing, which is the motion of bodies as forces are applied to them. Perhaps the initial intent of the article Dynamics (physics) was for it to be of a general nature, trying to describe how the word dynamics was used in all branches of physics. However, that is not the case. The article currently is about mechanics. I suggest leaving the article Dynamics_(physics) (I would even change the name to Dynamics_(mechanics)) and simply stating in it what anaylitical dynamics is. sanpaz ( talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! guys I see you all have a good point of view however let me say mine. When we (engineers/engineering professors) refer to dynamics few things come to mind: dynamics as in rigid body motion and dynamics as in vibration. Another name for vibration is structural dynamics. Another name for rigid body motion is analytical dynamics. Therefore dynamics in general should include both analytical dynamics and strutural dynamics. My suggestion is to edit the pages to reflect this. I prefer to have three pages one discussing dynamics and another two one discussing analytical and another for structural. I would redirect structural dynamics and/or vibration one to the other. The same for rigid body dynamics and/or analytical dynamics. I do not know how to direct or have more than one keyword to direct for a specific page. Dr eng x ( talk) 04:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dynamics (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It is very important for design of automobile and aerial planes Pkbiradar77 ( talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes Pkbiradar77 ( talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This article provides no value as is. Classical mechanics links Analytical dynamics which is slightly better than this article.
I think we should:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Concepts completely overlap at the level covered. Both articles are weak. The simpler name should be used. Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion around merging Dynamics (mechanics) with Analytical dynamics and the subsequent edits to classical mechanics, analytical mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, leads me to a new proposal:
@ Sgubaldo @ XOR'easter @ ReyHahn Sorry for the double take. Johnjbarton ( talk) Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
external causes or internal or both? 91.51.206.181 ( talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Kinetics (dynamics) is currently a redirect back to this article, which is quite annoying if you are trying to navigate there. -- Beland 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I came across this page and was very surprised to see that so little has been written about this topic. I've rated it as a stub article of top importance, considering that undergraduate entry level physics always starts with a semester of dynamics. Since there are many good physics articles, I would imagine it won't be too hard to piece together something that is at least B class. EMBaero ( talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)EMBaero
The current state of all articles related to Dynamics is not the best. I have encountered many pages that talk about the same thing or are related to each other and are not organized in a structured and logical manner. These are: Dynamics, kinetics, Kinematics, Equations of motion, SUVAT_equations, Displacement (vector), Acceleration, Velocity, Speed, Relative velocity, Rigid body dynamics, rigid body, Uniform circular motion, Centripetal force, Centrifugal force, Circular motion, Simple Harmonic Motion, Harmonic oscillator, Vibration, Damping, Damping ratio, Pendulum (mathematics), Rotational speed, Angular acceleration, Angular velocity, Angular frequency, Angular displacement, Rotational motion, Coriolis, Momentum, Angular momentum, Newton's law of motion, D'Alembert's principle, Virtual work, Friction, Mechanical work, Kinetic energy, Potential energy etc... (more need to be found). My proposal is to start from the Dynamics Page and structured the whole topic around this article. In this article the terms of Kinematics and Kinetics are explained and links to their corresponding sub-pages are provided (Particle Kinematics and Kinetics, and Rigid body kinematics and kinetics). Comments Sanpaz ( talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice revisions, Brews ohare. I'll rewrite the opening statement to be: "Dynamics is the study of ...," and move the "branch" talk to history section. (Similar treatment can be applied to kinetics.) Hope this can emphasis on the common use today while preserving historic context. Sillyvalley ( talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sillyvalley: I believe three editors were editing the article at the same time. So I may have lost some of your changes inadvertently. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article to be briefer and to eliminate what I found to be somewhat misleading or even erroneous remarks about kinematics. It also appears that definitions from dictionaries and encyclopedias are to be avoided, as they do not reflect technical usage. It is preferable to refer to texts on the subject for definitions. Thus, the reference to the definition in Encyclopedia Brittanica is deleted as erroneous. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A quick view of Greenwood 1977 convinced me that this is clearly a treatment of analytical dynamics alone, even though its title is "classical dynamics"; it is classical in the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian sense, not in the physics sense. Without a qualifier, dynamics concerns physics, which is based on empirical laws despite of application of mathematical models. I know that the difference between "empirical" and "postulated" can sometimes border on being philosophical, but a die-hard physicist wouldn't take a pure analytical approach. As long as it has not been disproved by empirical data and as long as the possibility exists for empirical data to disprove it, it is an empirical law. (Think Aristotle and Galileo.) But I don't have a suitable text at hand to make revisions. Hope some die-hard physicist can jump in. Sillyvalley ( talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Made some effort to integrate previous revisions. I revived the structure set up in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dynamics_(physics)&oldid=239231754. Here are some of the considerations:
Otherwise new materials are largely left unchanged. If you folks agree, the dispute template can be removed. Sillyvalley ( talk) 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Opposed I see no advantage in merging these topics; the distinction between the two topics is more readily grasped if they are kept in separate articles. As a matter of usage, the engineering and physics communities seem to view the two topics differently. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are the facts disputed on this page? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an approach is to rename this page Analytical dynamics, add it to the disambiguation Dynamics page and delete Dynamics (physics)? Brews ohare ( talk) 15:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Moment of inertia is not an essential concept as mass. It is introduced to simplify motion of a rigid body so we can compose motion using the moment (of center of mass) and a rotational moment. At its bottom, Newton's law is at work. After adding the effect of all (infinitesimal) forces on all (infinitesimal) particles, there is no need for moment of inertia but that's a lot more labor.
When the geometric relationship among the particles is no longer constant (non-rigid), moment of inertia loses its convenience. So in places like elastic mechanics, fluid mechanics, and continuum mechanics in general, this concept is not used. Sillyvalley ( talk) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was mistaken in referencing the Relativistic dynamics page. But there is actually a citation in the disambiguation page in support of the view that some consider the simple application of special theory of relativity to classical dynamics as relativistic dynamics. This page shares the responsibility to elaborate these views. It is not an unnecessary repetition. Sillyvalley ( talk) 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see new page Analytical dynamics and revision of Dynamics disambiguation page. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) hinlih fgfceyl98nn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.146.226 ( talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I know this comes from a previous discussion, but I do not see the need for having two separate articles about Dynamics and Analytical dynamics. They are very much about the same thing, which is the motion of bodies as forces are applied to them. Perhaps the initial intent of the article Dynamics (physics) was for it to be of a general nature, trying to describe how the word dynamics was used in all branches of physics. However, that is not the case. The article currently is about mechanics. I suggest leaving the article Dynamics_(physics) (I would even change the name to Dynamics_(mechanics)) and simply stating in it what anaylitical dynamics is. sanpaz ( talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! guys I see you all have a good point of view however let me say mine. When we (engineers/engineering professors) refer to dynamics few things come to mind: dynamics as in rigid body motion and dynamics as in vibration. Another name for vibration is structural dynamics. Another name for rigid body motion is analytical dynamics. Therefore dynamics in general should include both analytical dynamics and strutural dynamics. My suggestion is to edit the pages to reflect this. I prefer to have three pages one discussing dynamics and another two one discussing analytical and another for structural. I would redirect structural dynamics and/or vibration one to the other. The same for rigid body dynamics and/or analytical dynamics. I do not know how to direct or have more than one keyword to direct for a specific page. Dr eng x ( talk) 04:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dynamics (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It is very important for design of automobile and aerial planes Pkbiradar77 ( talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes Pkbiradar77 ( talk) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This article provides no value as is. Classical mechanics links Analytical dynamics which is slightly better than this article.
I think we should:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Concepts completely overlap at the level covered. Both articles are weak. The simpler name should be used. Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion around merging Dynamics (mechanics) with Analytical dynamics and the subsequent edits to classical mechanics, analytical mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, leads me to a new proposal:
@ Sgubaldo @ XOR'easter @ ReyHahn Sorry for the double take. Johnjbarton ( talk) Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)