Talk:Vis viva

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Obsolete?

How is this an "obsolete theory"? Vis viva is perhaps an "obsolete name" for energy, but the theory is not obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.231.130 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic energy

Intro says "It can be thought of as a type of kinetic energy" but 'a type of' seems misleading; wouldn't it be more accurate to say "It was the first [known] description of what we now call kinetic energy" ? Rod57 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the later addition of 1/2, I would say, yes, it is what we now call kinetic energy. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: edit it please.Stgoetz (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. - Rod57 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz vs. Newton or conservation of energy vs. conservation of momentum

imho this sentence is not correct:

"...represents an accurate statement of the conservation of kinetic energy in elastic collisions, and is a consequence of the conservation of momentum..."

its not a consequence. Both conservations are independent facts and consequence of the Homogeneity of time and space. see Noether's_theorem

I think its not neccessary to cite the original History of energy here and propose to delete that part.

Stgoetz (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a typo. It was first introduced by Michael Price in this edit: [1]. --Amble (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As A Supernatural Life-Giving Force?

I came to this term via Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life?", where he mentions the historical usage of the term as a means to describe the Élan vital, of sorts, that characterizes life. Would this be of value to the article? 216.21.161.163 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes did not "advance the conservation of momentum"

The "Overview" section states multiple times that Descartes, along with Newton, advanced "conservation of momentum." This is not true. Descartes asserted that total quantity of mass x speed (the scalar, not velocity the vector) is conserved. This concept is drastically different from Newton's idea of conservation of momentum (mass x velocity) and is due to the fact that Descartes believed space to be completely filled with matter without any vacuums. When Leibniz disagreed with Descartes (not with Newton), it was on this premise. The "Overview" section makes a common mistake in its description of the controversy. ^[1]

References

^ http://www.giovannibachelet.it/FG1-14-15/settimana_04/VisViva-PhysicsToday2006.pdf

[1] ttp://www.giovannibachelet.it/FG1-14-15/settimana_04/VisViva-PhysicsToday2006.pdf

[1]