Talk:Energy (science): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(Not a big deal)
imported>Paul Wormer
(→‎Comment deleted?: new section)
Line 12: Line 12:
: I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about the best name - I would only ask people that we discuss potential new names ''before'' we start moving articles around; since cluster moves are not (yet) automated (although I've just found some stuff that may enable us to make it easier), moving from name to name is a pain.
: I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about the best name - I would only ask people that we discuss potential new names ''before'' we start moving articles around; since cluster moves are not (yet) automated (although I've just found some stuff that may enable us to make it easier), moving from name to name is a pain.
: As to the correct target for the redirect at [[energy]] (whether to go here, or the dab page) - it's not that important, frankly. As long as there's a redir there, and all articles which reference this concept eventually get linked directly here, that's all that matters. I think most links to the name [[energy]] do mean this one, so it's probably reasonable to go here. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 09:54, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
: As to the correct target for the redirect at [[energy]] (whether to go here, or the dab page) - it's not that important, frankly. As long as there's a redir there, and all articles which reference this concept eventually get linked directly here, that's all that matters. I think most links to the name [[energy]] do mean this one, so it's probably reasonable to go here. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 09:54, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
== Comment deleted? ==
I seem to recall that I wrote a comment on this talk page when I started the article "energy". It was something like: Large subject, with many angles, science, economy, politics, etc., important that there is at least something, that is why I start. Also I seem to remember that I got some comments, as usual, that  my writing was too difficult. Do I just imagine this, or did the talk page get lost?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:12, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 10:12, 22 May 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A measurable physical quantity of a system which can be expressed in joules (the metric unit for a quantity of energy) or other measurement units such as ergs, calories, watt-hours or Btu. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Physics, Chemistry and Engineering [Please add or review categories]
 Subgroup category:  Energy policy
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Name?

If the distinction is between energy as discussed in physics and as discussed in psychology, then the former should not be titled energy (science), but energy (physics), since many people consider psychology, too, to be a science. I don't know that psychologists discuss energy under that title... Another obvious sense is energy in the sense of oil, solar, nuclear, etc. ...

And weren't we preferring to redirect energy to energy (disambiguation)? Just curious, maybe not. --Larry Sanger 07:49, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Larry, there are more sciences than physics that use the concept energy. Personally, I don't see psychology as a science (my late father, who was a psychologist, agreed with me on this). In any case, in psychology (science or not), energy has a completely different meaning than in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and so on. For one, energy (psychology) is not measurable, i.e., cannot be expressed in joule (or do you say to mrs. Sanger in the morning: "I have 10 kJ today and will write a nice blog and do some other work, whereas yesterday I had only 0.1 kJ and didn't get much done")?--Paul Wormer 08:40, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
I think there are good arguments both ways. Physics is certain the field in which energy is defined, although others (e.g. chemistry) make use of it.
I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about the best name - I would only ask people that we discuss potential new names before we start moving articles around; since cluster moves are not (yet) automated (although I've just found some stuff that may enable us to make it easier), moving from name to name is a pain.
As to the correct target for the redirect at energy (whether to go here, or the dab page) - it's not that important, frankly. As long as there's a redir there, and all articles which reference this concept eventually get linked directly here, that's all that matters. I think most links to the name energy do mean this one, so it's probably reasonable to go here. J. Noel Chiappa 09:54, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Comment deleted?

I seem to recall that I wrote a comment on this talk page when I started the article "energy". It was something like: Large subject, with many angles, science, economy, politics, etc., important that there is at least something, that is why I start. Also I seem to remember that I got some comments, as usual, that my writing was too difficult. Do I just imagine this, or did the talk page get lost?--Paul Wormer 10:12, 22 May 2008 (CDT)