Talk:Conservation of energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Explaining Galileo's importance or lack thereof[edit]

In the History section, when Galileo's "celebrated 'interrupted pendulum'" is discussed, there really should be a link on this or explanation of some kind. If it's so celebrated, then interrupted pendulum should at least redirect to somewhere, (however it doesn't.) I've looked at Galileo's research in the Pendulum article, but at the very least I don't understand where the "interrupted" part comes in; people should be able to understand his (non-)contribution without leaving Wikipedia. Koyae (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Conservation of energy/mass[edit]

Doesn't the law of their equivalence imply that we are talking about one and the same law? –St.nerol (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

reason for undo of good faith edit[edit]

I undid a good faith edit for the following reasons.

The edit did not cite adequate reliable sources; this reason is not a comment about Kundalini yoga or about Chinese philosophy; it is about the proper ways to source a Wikipedia entry. Kundalini yoga and Chinese philosophy are bodies of thought or practice, they are not specified particular writings or texts by specified particular authors; only these qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia entries.

The edit relied not on physical thinking but instead it relied on word associations, semantics, and allusions. The word energy has ordinary language usages that were called upon in the edit, but that are not the technical usage of physics. The edit did not make this clear, and was therefore semantically misleading, because it confounded the different usages.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)