Talk:History of heat

This redirect 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 redirect 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

Physics

This redirect 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

Gauss?

Why in this article is there no discussion of the contributions of Carl Gauss? Bearian 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gauss' theories are used in electromagnetics; however, if you link me to a book or paper that connects Gauss to the history of heat, I will add him. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 asOMG, well, not that it makes a difference to me whatever you want to call him. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you did read the source I've cited, ..."—this is WP:OR. Please remove or back it up with secondary literature.

OMG, the user has been banned for exactly that reason. So others should clean it up. --Rainald62 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed

The name "History of heat" for this article is quite bizarre. It sounds like it would tell us that, according to Homer, the world was quite cold and damp until the Greek general Thermos and his soldiers founded heat in 1253 BCE in central Italy, after the end of the Trojan war; and how heat eventually developed into a major Fiery Empire that burned half of Europe, reaching its maximum temperature under the Second Phlogiston Dynasty, before being quenched by the hordes of Adiabat the Hvac.
Seriously, please turn this article into an "Antiquity and Middle Ages" section of History of thermodynamics~~, or rename it "History of heat technology"~~. (It would be okay to leave a redirect from "history of heat", of course.)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC) {{expert|reason=As the invention of heat by hominids clearly laid the cornerstone to global warming, this article fails to convince on merits though.}}[reply]

User:Kbrose(talk) 14:56, 2019 April 15 (unknown timezone).

PS. The contents of this page seems to be entirely material that belongs to history of thermodynamics, or is already there. So I take back the suggestion of splitting off a "history of heat technology" article. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]