This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
That sort of ranking looks silly. Who is considering him to be "one of the 1000 most important scientists" ? Whoever wrote that tries to give the impression that such ranking is sort of nature-given, an indisputable fact. That is nonsense. Any value is a human decsion. So name the criteria, and the person/s who chose to apply these and came to the conclusion, then it makes some sense, otherwise not.22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I very much doubt the etymology for "Od". German Wp article on C.R. gives the nordic god "Odin" as name origin. The greek noun "He hodos" means 1. "way, road" and 2. "travelling, journeying"; also it would give "Hod", not "Od". And no reference is cited in the article. So that seems to be an error.126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Reichenbach himself wrote in the book "Odische Begebenheiten zu Berlin" p52, that the name Od is derived from the Sanskrit vâ. More detailed he explains this in his "Letters on Od an Magnetism" (letter 16): "vâ" in Sanskrit means "to move about". "Vado" in Latin and "Vada" in Old Norse means "I go quickly, hurry away, stream forth". Hence "Wodan" in Old Germanic expresses the idea of the "All-transcending"; in the various old idioms it appears as "Wuodan", "Odan" and "Odin" signifying the power penetrating all nature which is ultimately personified as a Germanic diety. "Od" is consequently the word to express a dynamid or force which, with a power that cannot be obstructed, quickly penetrates and courses through everything in the universe.188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not understand why he was described as a "philosopher". The publications cited deal with topics that today we would include under "natural science", and perhaps "parapsychology". Of course the meaning and understanding of scholarly terms such as "philosophy" are subject to change over centuries, but still it is not clear.184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)