Hi, I just created this template for fun, but I feel it's not very accurate and exaustive. Feel free to improve it as you wish and/or leave comments on my discussion page. Thanks. Frédérick Lacasse (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-11-21T23:11:00.000Z","author":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rick Lacasse","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rick_Lacasse-2007-11-21T23:11:00.000Z-Creation_of_template","replies":[]}}-->
here is a comment dont bet on dead horses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.209.14 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-04T17:24:00.000Z","author":"64.90.209.14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-64.90.209.14-2008-02-04T17:24:00.000Z-Creation_of_template","replies":[]}}-->
Newton didn't have vectors, so perhaps it would be nice to use his original notation of F = p ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle F={\dot {p}}} . On the other hand, however, Newton's second is more familiar to most as F = m a {\displaystyle F=ma} or F = m a → → --> {\displaystyle F=m{\vec {a}}} . Perhaps the current notation is a pleasant compromise? — gogobera (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-03T00:55:00.000Z","author":"Gogobera","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gogobera-2008-04-03T00:55:00.000Z-Newton's_notation","replies":[]}}-->
I propose the diagram's sub-legend 'Newton's second law of motion' be changed to 'The second law of motion of classical mechanics'.
The diagram is mistaken because its sub-legend 'Newton's second law of motion' is historically mistaken and if anything should be rather 'The second law of motion of classical mechanics'.
This is certainly not Newton's second law stated in the Principia, which was that THE change of motion [referred to in the first law] is proportional to the motive force impressed, i.e. Dmv @ F, or F --> Dmv (where 'D' = 'the absolute change', Delta, '@' = 'is proportional to', and '->' is the logical symbol for if... then...).
The misrepresentation of Newton's second law as F = ma or similar has the logical consequence that a = F/m and thus a = 0 when F = 0, whereby Newton's first law would be logically redundant just as Mach claimed it was.
But Newton's second law only deals with changes of motion produced by impressed force such as mentioned in the first law, and does not itself assert there is no change of motion without the action of impressed force as the law F = ma does, where F denotes impressed force rather than inertial force. And in fact both Galileo's 1590 Pisan impetus dynamics and Kepler's 'inertial' dynamics, both of which claimed motion would terminate without the continuing action of what Newton called 'impressed force', denied this principle.
But the logical function and historical purpose of Newton's first law is precisely to assert this principle, that there is no change of motion unless (i.e. If not) compelled by impressed force, and thus whereby Dmv <=> F, rather than just F --> Dmv. (Here <=> is the logical equivalence symbol for 'if and only if', and '-->' the symbol for 'If...then...') Thus Mach’s logical criticism was wrong by virtue of his ahistorical misinterpretation of Newton’s second law as F = ma.
Classical mechanics, whatever that might be, needs to be differentiated from Newton's mechanics.
--Logicus (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-16T18:20:00.000Z","author":"Logicus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Logicus-2008-04-16T18:20:00.000Z-Change_the_sub-legend","replies":["c-Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rick_Lacasse-2008-04-17T13:03:00.000Z-Logicus-2008-04-16T18:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
First of all, the relevant text is at wikisource, and I'll begin by saying that I disagree with Logicus on her/his proposal. Newton's second law is not stated, as such, mathematically. (Perhaps it is later in the Pricipia, I do not know.) For clarity, its statement under Axioms, or Laws of Motion reads:
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the straight line in which that force is impressed.
(Emphasis mine, in order to make clear that this is certainly an if and only if statement. Note that Logicus has failed to quote that word in presenting his/her argument.) Since Newton used Calculus in conjunction with this law to calculate planetary orbits and such, it is not too crude to use modern calculus notation in the box, even if we choose Leibniz' d / d t {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} /\mathrm {d} t} notation over Newton's dot. For that matter, we use vectorial notation when Newton had none. Therefore, clearly, in modern notation, Newton's second law reads
F → → --> = d d t m v → → --> {\displaystyle {\vec {F}}={\frac {\mathrm {d} }{\mathrm {d} t}}m{\vec {v}}} , and I have no problem with identifying this equation (or an equivalent one) as Newton's Second Law or Newton's Second Law of Motion. Or, see Goldstein, Poole, and Safko, Classical Mechanics (3rd ed.) page 1, where F = d p d t ≡ ≡ --> p ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle \mathbf {F} ={\frac {d\mathbf {p} }{dt}}\equiv {\dot {\mathbf {p} }}} is identified as Newton's second law of motion.
Regarding the other stuff you've said about Mach, historical interpretations, and other irrelevant (for the purposes here) things, perhaps this can help. Newton's second law, which can be expressed as F = m a {\displaystyle F=ma} cannot imply that "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon" (Law 1), without presupposing the existence of inertial frames, which is what the first law, in effect, does. The fundamental disconnect between Newton and Mach, as I understand it, concerns the existence of a preferred inertial frame.
If, unlike I've read in many sources over the years, you have sources that claim Newton never equated force with a time-rate-of-change of momentum, you might be able to begin to find people willing to change their ways. However, the classical mechanics template talk is not the place for that discussion. — gogobera (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T20:10:00.000Z","author":"Gogobera","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gogobera-2008-04-17T20:10:00.000Z-Change_the_sub-legend","replies":[]}}-->
--Logicus (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-17T20:34:00.000Z","author":"Logicus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Logicus-2008-04-17T20:34:00.000Z-Change_the_sub-legend","replies":[]}}-->
See Talk:Newton's_laws_of_motion#Change_the_.27Classical_mechanics.27_diagram.27s_sub-legend_.3F for the continued discussion. — gogobera (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-25T18:51:00.000Z","author":"Gogobera","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gogobera-2008-04-25T18:51:00.000Z-Change_the_sub-legend","replies":[]}}-->
Logicus has requested sources backing up the relevance of Kepler and Galileo to the history of classical mechanics, so here it goes:
It seems abundantly clear that Galileo and Kepler are related to the history of classical mechanics, so I'm removing those tags.-Oreo Priest talk 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-30T16:02:00.000Z","author":"OreoPriest","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-OreoPriest-2008-07-30T16:02:00.000Z-Source_regarding_Galileo_and_Kepler","replies":["c-Logicus-2008-07-30T17:39:00.000Z-OreoPriest-2008-07-30T16:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
May I recommend you actually look at the diagram here, where you should see that almost half the box features a statement of Newton's Second law, and then it says "History of...". But whilst Kepler and Galileo were listed in "Scientists" for some unspecified reason, notably they are not listed in "Formulations", presumably for the very good reason that they did not formulate any variant of classical mechanics.
And by the way, why on earth is Cauchy listed ? --Logicus (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-30T17:52:00.000Z","author":"Logicus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Logicus-2008-07-30T17:52:00.000Z-Source_regarding_Galileo_and_Kepler","replies":["c-Logicus-2008-08-04T17:18:00.000Z-Logicus-2008-07-30T17:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hertz should surely definitely be included in the list of classical mechanics scientists by virtue of his 1894 Principles of Mechanics as an important distinct variant of classical mechanics. For example, it seems that what is taught at such as GCE A-level Physics as 'Newtonian mechanics' is in fact not such, but if anything really Hertzian mechanics, which was based on the concepts of space, time and mass, but excluding force, whereas the notion of force, and especially inertial force, is basic to Newton's Principia mechanics, no less than 6 of whose 8 formal definitions were concerned with defining forces.
It seems one hallmark of the difference between real historical Newtonian mechanics, understood here as 'the mechanics of Isaac Newton's Principia', and what is taught in contemporary educational institutions as 'Newtonian mechanics', is that in the latter there is only one operative force in gravitational free-fall, that is, gravitational fall in a vacuum, namely the impressed force of gravity, whereas in Newtonian mechanics there is also the body's inherent force of inertia that resists the impressed force of gravity. For as Newton said of the force of inertia,
"Moreover, a body exerts this force [of inertia] only during a change of its state, caused by another force impressed upon it, and this exercise of force is...resistance " [p404, Cohen & Whitman 1999 Principia]
And in real Newtonian mechanics it is by virtue of the constant proportionality of the motive force of their gravitational mass and the resistant force of their inertial mass that all unequal weights would fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. --Logicus (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-15T15:44:00.000Z","author":"Logicus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Logicus-2008-08-15T15:44:00.000Z-Source_regarding_Galileo_and_Kepler","replies":[]}}-->
In his 1995 'Newton's Principia for the common reader', Chandrasekhar takes Maxwell's 1877 formulation of classical mechanics as the canonical version of Newtonian mechanics. I propose he should therefore be included in the list of scientists. --Logicus (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-19T17:52:00.000Z","author":"Logicus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Logicus-2008-08-19T17:52:00.000Z-Source_regarding_Galileo_and_Kepler","replies":[]}}-->
I compiled a list of all articles that I've found related to Classical Mechanics. I think it is important start indexing/listing all the articles that have direct relation with Classical Mechanics. Knowing what articles are out there will force editors to start thinking about the individual articles in context. This will provide structure to the topic of mechanics, avoiding duplications and improving the overall reading of the articles. The current form of this section is not the way it should be. It is just a first step. I better way to present the navigation box should be thought and discussed. For example: Do we need sections on Dynamics of particles, Dynamics of rigid bodies, statics, etc... Comments? - Sanpaz (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-22T03:58:00.000Z","author":"Sanpaz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sanpaz-2008-09-22T03:58:00.000Z-List_of_articles_(Article_section)","replies":["c-Sanpaz-2008-09-22T04:08:00.000Z-Sanpaz-2008-09-22T03:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
I initially found this template confusing in the articles it is used because it seemed that the equation which is shown had something directly to do with the article. It took a moment to realize that it is just being used symbolically to indicate a classical mechanics article. So I assume other people might also find this confusing (maybe more or less than myself!)
I suggest therefore that either the presentation of the formula be changed so that it looks more like a symbol (I'm not an art student however...) or something else be used instead.
Thanks Dhollm (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-07T13:19:00.000Z","author":"Dhollm","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dhollm-2008-10-07T13:19:00.000Z-Template_is_confusing_when_reading_articles_it_is_used_in","replies":[]}}-->
Isn't Fluid Mechanics (or Fluid Dynamics) a branch of Classical mechanics in its own right? Why do we not include it? --BozMo talk 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-03T10:26:00.000Z","author":"BozMo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BozMo-2009-02-03T10:26:00.000Z-Fluid_Mechanics?","replies":["c-Sanpaz-2009-02-03T13:45:00.000Z-BozMo-2009-02-03T10:26:00.000Z","c-BozMo-2009-02-04T13:26:00.000Z-BozMo-2009-02-03T10:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
I am of the opinion that Cauchy should be included in this template, as he originally formulated the stress tensor, now fundamental in solid and fluid mechanics. Any thoughts? Thudso (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-11T15:33:00.000Z","author":"Thudso","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thudso-2009-12-11T15:33:00.000Z-Cauchy","replies":[]}}-->
The template seems far too big now, and so much less useful. Compared to this version there are two related problems. The sheer number of links is overwhelming, with the 'Fundamental concepts' section, probably the first one users will look at, by far the biggest recipient. That makes it much less accessible. It used to just contain the genuinely fundamental concepts Space, Time, Mass, Force, Energy and Momentum. Now they are difficult to find among the other topics which range up to university level topics. Apart from this there's some redundancy: duplicate links and extra words.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-09T09:57:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-04-09T09:57:00.000Z-Too_big?","replies":["c-Sanpaz-2010-04-09T15:26:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-04-09T09:57:00.000Z","c-Sanpaz-2010-04-09T17:10:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-04-09T09:57:00.000Z","c-Sanpaz-2010-04-09T17:24:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-04-09T09:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
Ok. Let's first define which ones are Fundamental concepts (instead of calling them Basic concepts): Space, time, velocity, speed, acceleration, gravity, mass, force, momentum, angular momentum, inertia, moment of inertia, reference frame, energy, mechanical work, virtual work, D'Alembert's principle. Please add or delete some. But, for me these are fundamental quantities or concepts for classical mechanics. Taking any o those away does not make sense. For example: Including force, and not momentum?. Or Energy, and not work? I never subscribe to the idea of too complex or to advance for readers. Things are the way the are. Objects in the universe have inertia, you cannot hide that concept from readers just because you think is too advance. The way you explain the concepts inside the article is the way you make things clear to readers. sanpaz (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-09T19:59:00.000Z","author":"Sanpaz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sanpaz-2010-04-09T19:59:00.000Z-Fundamental_concepts","replies":[]}}-->
What are the core topics of Classical mechanics? First, motion comes to mind. So, Motion, Newton's laws of motion, Equations of motion (I disagree with the title of that article), Circular motion, Uniform circular motion, Non-uniform circular motion, Harmonic oscillator, Simple harmonic motion. Now, all other links are part of some or all of these motions. I know that right now these core topics are too many. But the problem with so many links is due to the fact that a lot of those article should not exist but should be part of one single article. For example, centripetal force, centrifugal force, angular velocity, angular acceleration, Uniform circular motion, Non-uniform circular motion, should be part once single article called Circular motion. But that is another big issue that cannot be solved right now in this template. So the only thing we can do at this moment is to include all articles related to circular motion. sanpaz (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-09T20:32:00.000Z","author":"Sanpaz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sanpaz-2010-04-09T20:32:00.000Z-Core_Topics","replies":[]}}-->
The infobox carries the equation F=d/dt(mv) as an illustration. This is not helpful in the article Kinematics, which is described as the study of motion without consideration of the forces that cause the motion. The force equation causes confusion between Kinematics and Kinetics. Could we have some other illustration? Perhaps a piston rod, some gears, a pendulum, or whatever. --LA2 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-08-17T12:16:00.000Z","author":"LA2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LA2-2010-08-17T12:16:00.000Z-Confusing_illustration","replies":["c-Ccrrccrr-2012-04-17T00:55:00.000Z-LA2-2010-08-17T12:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
I am interested in the justification for including Horrocks and Clairaut as significant contributors to the field of classical mechanics. Admittedly, I have not come across either of them in all my study of classical mechanics (the prominence of all the others is quite evident). Their pages here do not suggest any major contributions, no does their lack of fame - if someone can provide sources however, I'm perfectly willing to change this view. Noldorin (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-25T23:47:00.000Z","author":"NoldorinElf","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-NoldorinElf-2011-01-25T23:47:00.000Z-Reasons_for_including_Horrocks_and_Clairaut_in_list_of_scientists?","replies":[],"displayName":"Noldorin"}}-->
This template has a history of illustration struggles... So I thought one which shows the essence and fundamentals of classical mechanics in a simple illustration would help:
It shows the particle has a fixed mass m, and moves in a deterministic path (note the particle has traversed a definite past and will traverse a future path), also showing the absolutely fundamental dynamical variables of q (the generalized coordinate, i.e. configuration) and p (generalized momentum, i.e. motion), as functions of time t, from which all dynamical variables can be derived from. Any objections to inclusion? Is it too obscure or mysterious? M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-02-26T10:12:00.000Z","author":"Maschen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Maschen-2013-02-26T10:12:00.000Z-Picture_proposal","replies":["c-CsDix-2013-02-26T13:18:00.000Z-Maschen-2013-02-26T10:12:00.000Z","c-CsDix-2013-02-26T13:22:00.000Z-Maschen-2013-02-26T10:12:00.000Z"],"displayName":"M\u2227\u015c"}}-->
|answered=
|ans=
I think that the Hungarian Scientist Loránd Eötvös should be included as one of the scientist for the general relativity portal. he was cited by einstein in his works and has a university named after him i think he should be included
72.219.176.60 (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-21T06:05:00.000Z","author":"72.219.176.60","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-72.219.176.60-2013-06-21T06:05:00.000Z-Edit_request_on_21_June_2013","replies":["c-Mdann52-2013-07-10T12:28:00.000Z-72.219.176.60-2013-06-21T06:05:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is no "classical mechanics" there is just old physics and quantum physics. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-09-21T06:17:00.000Z","author":"Inowen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Inowen-2018-09-21T06:17:00.000Z-Classical","replies":[]}}-->
The list of formulations makes a reference to an article with clear neutrality issues. That list should only point to notable formulations that are on par in their fundamental impact with the Lagrangian or Hamilton-Jacobi formulations (as some examples). I suggest the removal of the reference to the Udwadia-Kalaba equation for lack of notability. Reading the linked article, it looks like an attempted promotional push. As is well known, there is no unique formulation of analytical mechanics and the list should only point of especially notable formulations such as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The reference to the little-known Udwadia-Kalaba equation in the same vein as the other substantially more notable ones is inappropriate.
- V madhu (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-12-02T11:35:00.000Z","author":"V madhu","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-V_madhu-2019-12-02T11:35:00.000Z-Reference_to_article_with_neutrality_issues","replies":[]}}-->
I think the scientists in the column should include Pierre Louis Maupertuis. 131.225.45.142 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2022-05-26T04:45:00.000Z","author":"131.225.45.142","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-131.225.45.142-2022-05-26T04:45:00.000Z-Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_May_2022","replies":["c-Maddy_from_Celeste-2022-05-28T09:12:00.000Z-131.225.45.142-2022-05-26T04:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
I think the thumbnail of that topic needs to be changed, that is F=d(mv)/dt, as this form of Newton's second law is known to be incorrect in the general case (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00052611). This is a very common mistake that keeps being perpetuated, and that thumbnail does not help. It could be changed for F=ma for example. 78.124.168.246 (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230415215300","author":"78.124.168.246","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-78.124.168.246-20230415215300-Thumbnail_should_be_changed","replies":[]}}-->
2012 film directed by Alex Kurtzman People Like UsTheatrical release posterDirected byAlex KurtzmanWritten by Alex Kurtzman Roberto Orci Jody Lambert Produced by Roberto Orci Bobby Cohen Clayton Townsend Alex Kurtzman Starring Chris Pine Elizabeth Banks Olivia Wilde Jon Favreau Michael Hall D'Addario Michelle Pfeiffer CinematographySalvatore TotinoEdited byRobert LeightonMusic byA. R. RahmanProductioncompanies DreamWorks Pictures[1] Reliance Entertainment[1] K/O Paper Products …
Austrian tennis player Gerald MelzerMelzer at the 2016 Wimbledonqualifying tournamentCountry (sports) AustriaResidenceLinz, AustriaBorn (1990-07-13) 13 July 1990 (age 33)Vienna, AustriaHeight1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)Turned pro2007PlaysLeft-handed (two-handed backhand)Prize money$978,627SinglesCareer record20–36 (35.7%)Career titles0Highest rankingNo. 68 (21 November 2016)Current rankingNo. 199 (18 July 2022)Grand Slam singles resultsAustralian…
يفتقر محتوى هذه المقالة إلى الاستشهاد بمصادر. فضلاً، ساهم في تطوير هذه المقالة من خلال إضافة مصادر موثوق بها. أي معلومات غير موثقة يمكن التشكيك بها وإزالتها. (فبراير 2013) لمعانٍ أخرى، طالع الحكومة السورية (توضيح). حكومة ناظم القدسي الثالثةمعلومات عامةالبلد الجمهورية ال
زجاجيات المختبر مجموعة متنوعة من المعدات، والمصنوعة تقليديا من الزجاج، وتستخدم لإجراء التجارب العلمية والأعمال الأخرى في مجال العلوم، وخاصة في مختبرات الكيمياء وعلم الأحياء.[1][2][3] التطبيقات ان استخدام الزجاج في التطبيقات المختبرية ليس شائعا كما كان مرة من قبل…
Karel IV van Spanje was nog gewoon om drie grootlinten te dragen. Wilhelm van Hessen Kassel droeg een grootlint over iedere schouder. Het grootlint van de Spaanse Orde van Karel III met daaraan een grootkruis Het grootlint van de Spaanse Orde van Karel III als heraldisch pronkstuk in het wapen van H.M. Koningin Letizia van Spanje Een generaal draagt het grootlint van de Orde van het BadDe Britse Koningin en Prins Philip dragen hun Lesser George aan een grootlint. Aartsbisschop Jevgeni Kazantsev …
هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (أغسطس 2020) غويلرمو بيريرا معلومات شخصية الميلاد 20 فبراير 1980 (43 سنة)[1] ريو كوارتو، قرطبة الطول 1.83 م (6 قدم 0 بوصة) مركز اللعب وسط الجنسية الأرجنتين إيط
Analisis dampak lalu lintas (ANDALALIN) adalah Studi / Kajian mengenai dampak lalu lintas dari suatu kegiatan dan/atau usaha tertentu yang hasilnya dituangkan dalam bentuk dokumen Andalalin atau Perencanaan pengaturan Lalu Lintas. Hal ini dikaitkan bahwa setiap perubahan guna lahan akan mengakibatkan perubahan di dalam sistem transportasi nya. Mall yang besar, atau stadion ataupun kawasan permukiman yang baru akan memengaruhi lalu lintas yang ada di sekitar kegiatan baru tersebut. Dengan andalal…
Vein of the orbit around the eye Inferior ophthalmic veinVeins of orbit.DetailsDrains toSuperior ophthalmic vein or cavernous sinus, and pterygoid venous plexusIdentifiersLatinVena ophthalmica inferiorTA98A12.3.06.117TA24900FMA51247Anatomical terminology[edit on Wikidata] The inferior ophthalmic vein is a vein of the orbit that - together with the superior ophthalmic vein - represents the principal drainage system of the orbit. It begins from a venous network in the front of the orbit, then …
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: List of indoor arenas in Italy – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) The following is a list of indoor arenas in Italy with capacity for at least 4,000 spectators. Most of the arenas in t…
الاستعمار الاستيطاني هو الاستيلاء على الأرض واستغلال سكانها واقتلاعهم من أراضهم وديارهم بالإبادة أو التهجير، فهو يحول البلاد التي يستعمرها إلى أرض جديدة ليمارس السيطرة المطلقة عليها من خلال المستوطنيين. فالاستيطان هو أن يقوم مستعمِرون باستيطان أرض خارج حدود دولتهم بتأيي
Kandidatenplakat zur Bundestagswahl 1965 Hermann Schwörer (* 1. Mai 1922 in Oberstetten; † 24. November 2017[1][2] in Sigmaringen) war ein deutscher Jurist, Unternehmer und Politiker der CDU. Er war von 1958 bis 1994 Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages und parallel von 1970 bis 1979 Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Leben und Beruf 2 Politische Tätigkeit 3 Sonstige Mitgliedschaften, Ehrungen und Auszeichnungen 4 Veröffentlichungen 5 Literatur 6 Webli…
Final club at Harvard University, US United States historic placePorcellian ClubU.S. National Register of Historic PlacesU.S. Historic districtContributing property Location1320-24 Massachusetts Ave.Cambridge, MassachusettsCoordinates42°22′22.55″N 71°07′04.10″W / 42.3729306°N 71.1178056°W / 42.3729306; -71.1178056Part ofHarvard Square Historic District (ID86003654)MPSCambridge MRANRHP reference No.83000824Significant datesAdded to NRHPJune 30, 1983De…
Community college in Elgin, Illinois, U.S. Elgin Community CollegeTypePublic community collegeEstablishedJanuary 10, 1949; 74 years ago (1949-01-10)AccreditationThe Higher Learning CommissionEndowment$7.1 million (2020)[1]PresidentDavid SamAcademic staff136 (Full-time) and 342(Part-Time)[2]Students8,050 (all undergraduate) (Spring 2022)[3]LocationElgin, Illinois, U.S.42°01′05″N 88°19′20″W / 42.01806°N 88.32222°W / 42.0…
1964 film by Raoul Walsh For the 1952 British film directed by Terence Fisher, see Distant Trumpet. A Distant TrumpetFrench theatrical release posterDirected byRaoul WalshWritten byRichard FielderAlbert Beicht (adaptation)Screenplay byJohn TwistBased onA Distant Trumpet1960 novelby Paul HorganProduced byWilliam H. WrightStarringTroy DonahueSuzanne PleshetteWilliam ReynoldsCinematographyWilliam H. ClothierEdited byDavid WagesMusic byMax SteinerDistributed byWarner Bros. PicturesRelease dateMay…
Крейдовий період Хронологія 145–66 млн років тому Середня концентрація кисню (O2) впродовж періоду бл. 30 %[1](150 % від сучасного рівня) Середня концентрація вуглекислого газу (CO2) впродовж періоду бл. 1700 ppm[2](у 6 разів більше доіндустріального періоду) Середня темпера…
Radio station in Atlixco, Puebla XHVP-FMAtlixco, PueblaFrequency101.3 FMBrandingSol FMProgrammingFormatGrupera/tropicalOwnershipOwnerCinco Radio(Radio X.H.V.P-FM, S.A. de C.V.)HistoryFirst air dateJuly 7, 1981 (concession)Technical informationClassB1ERP25 kW[1]Transmitter coordinates18°54′27.8″N 98°26′02.9″W / 18.907722°N 98.434139°W / 18.907722; -98.434139LinksWebsitecincoradio.com.mx/estacion/sol XHVP-FM is a radio station on 101.3 FM in Atlixco, Pue…
Dutch politician Anton van SchijndelMember of the House of RepresentativesIn office2005–2006Member of the municipal council of AmsterdamIncumbentAssumed office 2018 Personal detailsBorn(1960-01-12)12 January 1960Amsterdam, NetherlandsPolitical partyForum for DemocracyOther politicalaffiliationsVVD (1994-2006)One NL (2006-2007)Residence(s)Amsterdam, Netherlands Anton Van Schijndel (born January 12, 1960) is a Dutch politician. He was a member of parliament in the House of Representatives fr…
Desert on the African continent For other uses, see Sahara (disambiguation). SaharaThe Sahara taken by Apollo 17 astronauts, 1972Geographical map of the SaharaLength4,800 km (3,000 mi)Width1,800 km (1,100 mi)Area9,200,000 km2 (3,600,000 sq mi)NamingNative nameArabic: الصحراء الكبرىaṣ-ṣaḥrā' al-kubráThe greatest desertGeographyCountries List Algeria Chad Egypt Libya Mali Mauritania Morocco Niger …
移動迷宮之焦土試煉Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials電影海報基本资料导演韋斯·波爾监制馬蒂·鮑恩威克·戈弗雷艾倫·戈德史密斯-維因(英语:Ellen Goldsmith-Vein)李·史托曼小喬·哈特維克编剧T·S·諾林(英语:T.S. Nowlin)原著《移動迷宮2:焦土試煉(英语:The Scorch Trials)》詹姆士·達許納作品主演狄倫·歐布萊恩卡雅·斯考达里奥托马斯·桑斯特李起弘雅各布·洛夫蘭吉安卡洛·伊坡托…
1999 Spanish filmJealousyTheatrical release posterSpanishCelos Directed byVicente ArandaScreenplay byÁlvaro del AmoVicente ArandaProduced byJosé Luis EscolarStarringDaniel Giménez CachoAitana Sánchez-GijónMaría BottoLuis TosarCinematographyJosé Luis Alcaine[1]Edited byTeresa FontMusic byJosé NietoProductioncompaniesSogetelCalle CruzadaDistributed byWarner SogefilmsRelease date 3 September 1999 (1999-09-03) Running time105 minutesCountrySpainLanguageSpanishBox offic…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 18.116.27.251