Talk:Newtonian mechanics

Merge

Should this be merged with Classical mechanics? Nightwatch 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely as one of the most remarkable developments that eventually shaped the industrial revolution of the western world this needs to be provided a separate treatment. 81.111.172.198 00:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

it should be merged. --MarSch 11:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed --1698

I believe that it is important enough to have its own section, but that in its present state it doesn't have enough information to be a separate entry. I believe that the articles should be merged or that information should be added to this one. Raoulharris 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)::

I also believe it also deserves it's own section, primarily because there are other ways of doing classical mechanics besides Newton's F=ma, particularly using Hamiltonian and Lagrangian methods. It might be a good idea to point this out here, while also aknowledging that often Newtonian Mechanics and Classical Mechanics are terms which in many circumstances are used interchangably, even if there are some differences in scope. DAG 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they should be, mainly because this article doesnt contain enough information to be seperate from the classical mechanics article. I agree with the comment above^

"They should be merged

• Merge. Make Newtonian mechanics, a part of classical mechanics article. Sauron 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Newtonian mechanics is, for all pratical purposes, Classical mechanics. Classical mechanics refers to a classical paradigm based on the idea of a static reference point, according to Isaac Asimov in Understanding Physics. Newton created the paradigm when he presented Principia Matematica. Though there are other methods to solve problems in classical mechanics, namely, the aforementioned Lagrangian method, Newton's three law method is predominant. There is no point to keep them separate, as they are too closely related and it would be no more than the seperation done by a dictonary. If anything one should explain the distinction between Classical and Newtonian mechanics within the Classical mechanics article. --Irtwood 28 March 2006

I disagree with the merge. This page should explicitely link to Classical mechanics, but given that it is more of a historical name and has historical content. I'm not sure about all the intricacies related to this. Is Newtonian mechanics a subset of Classical mechanics, or does it differ in some ways? If it differs, than in no way should it be part of the classical mechanics page. Fresheneesz 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merge. Modern day physicists see Newtonian, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics as three seperate ways of finding solutions to Classical systems. The three are just branches of Classical problem solving. Infact Newtonian mechanics, while being the most well-known and widely used by the general public, is quite inferior to the other two for some important systems (An average orbit problem taking 5-6 A4 pages of work using Newtonian methods could easily take half a page with another method) and having it as part of the Classical mechanics page would imply otherwise. The historical impacts of Newton are already well recorded on the Classical mechanics page, the content of this page has nothing more to add in that respect. Also, as stated in the Classical Mechanics page: "While the terms classical mechanics and Newtonian mechanics are usually considered equivalent, the conventional content of classical mechanics was created in the 19th century and differs considerably (particularly in its use of analytical mathematics) from the work of Newton."

In short, Newtonian Mechanics and Classical mechanics are not equivilant and should not be treated as such. Although, I would reccomend that the three Laws be included here, as well as a general outline of what solving problems using Newtonian Mechancs entails and where other methods are better. 143.239.130.8 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment on the Classical Mechanics talk page... but could this instead be merged with Newton's laws of motion?--Ling.Nut 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Those who disagree with the merge might edit the article to include the distinctive information relating to Newtonian Mechanics.

lack of rigor

not rigurous.

first:

check out Bozunov Formulas

Newtonian Mechanics Based on Forces - Classical Mechanics is More Inclusive

Classical mechanics is a general term that includes Newtonian mechanics, Lagrangian mechanics, Hamiltonian mechanics, and other clasical theories of mechanics such as continuum mechanics. The Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian theories of clasical mechanics are dual to one another. They predict the same results. It is just that the first uses forces and the other two use energy as their basis of deduction. So one might want to merge these three articles.

However classical mechanics also includes continuum mechanics. This treats the mechanics of gases and fluids as well as non-rigid extended bodies and can be considered the generalization of the three theories above to these continuous systems. There are also other parts of classical mechanics.

The reason that many people use the term Newton mechanics for non-quantum, non-relativisic treatments of mechanics is that there is ambiguity in the term "classical mechanics" that is ruled out by saying "Newtonian mechanics" and since the three theories are dual, they predict the same results. This is not sufficient reason to merge the articles about Classical and Newtonian mechanics.

--F3meyer 04:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Newton's laws of motion

The merge into Classical mechanics is disputed, esp. on the Talk:Classical mechanics page. I say we declare that merge suggestion dead, and merge into Newton's laws of motion instead. --Ling.Nut 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)