Talk:Kinematics
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kinematics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Wiki Education assignment: PHY 381 History of Modern Physics
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 24 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeffrey Sucuzhanay (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Janyahmercedes (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Particle trajectories in cylindrical-polar coordinates
editThe section "Particle trajectories in cylindrical-polar coordinates" has no refs and no definition for omega. I'm inclined to delete the whole section per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Any mention of 'quantum kinematics'?
editAny mention of the concept of kinematics in a quantum context?
Wikipedia search results (there is a mention of "quantum kinematics" in the complementarity page): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22quantum+kinematics%22&ns0=1 172.56.232.68 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed the page Complementarity (physics) to remove the claim about "quantum kinematics". It probably correct but beside the point for th article.
- Every mechanics has kinematics, it's just the study of unforced motion. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok I fixed it, thanks.
Done Johnjbarton (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok I fixed it, thanks.
Grammatical Issues in the Overview Section
editThere are multiple grammatical problems in the overview section that bleed over into being completely ambiguous like the sentence "The study of how forces act on bodies falls within kinetics or dynamics (including analytical dynamics), not kinematics." While a fair amount of the grammatical issues I can easily correct, I lack enough knowledge on kinematics (hence my current visit to the page) to correct some of them in a way that ensures the resulting sentences are sufficiently likely to be correct statements on the subject.
This is then a plea to someone with sufficient knowledge to clean up this section - a quick task for anyone equipped enough. 2001:1970:482B:4100:D409:772B:1057:123C (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm missing something, but the sentence you've quoted appears clear & unambiguous to me? ···sardonism · t · c 21:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are confusing "kinetics" with "kinematics"? I think this can be fixed up. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just reorder that sentence a bit. Does it help? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)