 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Merging into Equation of motion
As much as I enjoyed vectorising these equations and so on, it looks like this article overlaps a lot with equation of motion. Any comments? – drw25 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this page should remain separate, from an educational point of view mostly. These equations are frequently referred to just as "SUVAT" equations and not necessarily "equations of motion", and it is very easy for students to find just what they are looking for when researching SUVAT with this page. I feel to merge this page with the equation of motion would just result in added confusion. Skyld 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- By my reckoning both pages contain exactly the same equations, but with different symbols. If the articles were merged, SUVAT would redirect to equations of motion, so a search for SUVAT would still bring up the relevant equations. – drw25 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-- I agree. I think the page should be merged with Equations of Motion. Drw25 already made the main point that anyone searching for "SUVAT" equations can simply be redirected to Equations of Motion, which is the more proper place for these equations anyway since motion is what they dictate. In my personal experience, I have never heard of the "SUVAT" equations before reading about them on Wikipedia -- they have always just been referred to as the equations of motion. It is more appropriate to denote equations by what they are versus what variables they contain; you will never hear a physicist seriously calling the Schrodinger Equation in three dimensions the "HMGradPsiVPsiEPsi" equation. Although SUVAT may be a helpful denotation for beginning physics students, redirecting it to Equations of Motion should not prove to be too confusing. Dchristle 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This article quotes explicit units, which aren't actually necessary to make the equation work - they hold just as true if you use furlongs and nano-fortnights for length and time, and the corresponding derived units for velocity and acceleration. FleetfootMike 07:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a need to list the varibles for both, as the only change is d for s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.23.198 ( talk) 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Merging into Equation of motion
As much as I enjoyed vectorising these equations and so on, it looks like this article overlaps a lot with equation of motion. Any comments? – drw25 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this page should remain separate, from an educational point of view mostly. These equations are frequently referred to just as "SUVAT" equations and not necessarily "equations of motion", and it is very easy for students to find just what they are looking for when researching SUVAT with this page. I feel to merge this page with the equation of motion would just result in added confusion. Skyld 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- By my reckoning both pages contain exactly the same equations, but with different symbols. If the articles were merged, SUVAT would redirect to equations of motion, so a search for SUVAT would still bring up the relevant equations. – drw25 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-- I agree. I think the page should be merged with Equations of Motion. Drw25 already made the main point that anyone searching for "SUVAT" equations can simply be redirected to Equations of Motion, which is the more proper place for these equations anyway since motion is what they dictate. In my personal experience, I have never heard of the "SUVAT" equations before reading about them on Wikipedia -- they have always just been referred to as the equations of motion. It is more appropriate to denote equations by what they are versus what variables they contain; you will never hear a physicist seriously calling the Schrodinger Equation in three dimensions the "HMGradPsiVPsiEPsi" equation. Although SUVAT may be a helpful denotation for beginning physics students, redirecting it to Equations of Motion should not prove to be too confusing. Dchristle 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This article quotes explicit units, which aren't actually necessary to make the equation work - they hold just as true if you use furlongs and nano-fortnights for length and time, and the corresponding derived units for velocity and acceleration. FleetfootMike 07:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a need to list the varibles for both, as the only change is d for s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.23.198 ( talk) 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)