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.
I have also removed the post "he hypothesis that heat is a form of motion was initially proposed in the 13th century, by the medieval Arabic physicist ʻAbd Allah Baydawi" The source you listed for that doesn't make that claim. Baydawi is not a scientist, he's just a theologian and he is making commentary on Aristotelian ideas on heat. All he says is that heat is caused by a change in motion of objects, such as rocks or any other macroscopic object. Lastly, Baydawi, is actually objecting to the idea of "motion-change" causing heat, hence his mention about celestial objects in the paragraph after and why their movement doesn't cause them to gain heat. This is hardly what were talking about when we speak of heat as a form of motion, that is about particle movement caused by heat You just seem hell bent on in cluttering this page with irrelevant and in this case untrue facts don't you. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've directly quoted what Baydawi stated. How much clearer can you get than "heat may occur through motion-change" (in Baydawi's own words)? If you did read the source I've cited, then it's quite clear he did consider this as one of two possibilities, and there is nothing in the next paragraph to suggest that he is trying to refute the idea, but he is simply trying to explain how heavenly spheres are not receptive to heat. In fact, he states in the preceding paragraph that "It is most likely that natural heat is different from the heat of fire, and likewise, [from] the heat that emanates from the heavenly bodies." In other words, he thought that the heavenly bodies have their own properties. I don't see how you somehow managed to interpret it as some kind of refutation against heat from motion-change, but it seems you've misread the source. Jagged 85 (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And so what if he didn't say motion-change of atoms or microscopic objects? The 13th century is too early for someone to be saying something like that. At least his suggestion of heat caused by motion change is an improvement over what his predecessors said, and that fact alone makes it notable enough to be mentioned. The reference I provided for Baydawi is clearly a reliable source. Again, you're showing double-standards by expecting me to provide cross-references when you yourself have not provided any references at all for any of the other views mentioned on this page. You're hypocrisy is just mind-boggling. And for your information, many physicists and scientists during the Middle Ages were often theologians as well, not that it makes a difference to me whatever you want to call him. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)