Talk:Physics in the medieval Islamic world

If you are considering adding more information to this page a great place to start and find references is http://islam.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_in_medieval_Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan mccollum (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

ya check when i posted that comment, and you haven't changed anything, both the sources you list under the air thermometer are brutally inappropriate, Briffault one having something along the lines, some say he used an air thermometer, and the other source witting one sentence on it. The problem being neither book is source is about the history of science. give me a source that explains his thermometer, how it worked, and how he built it. I like your little contribution of principle parameter, it would be pretty hard for it to be that since it could not tell the temperature, only hotness or coldness of air, which are totally subjective., since temp. scales didn't exist at the time, also it would have been subject to barometric pressure and evaporation and was extremely inaccurate at that. what compounds this even further, as stated before neither of your sources claim how it was built, how it worked, or anything to do about this device, except a sentence, i guess you thought you'd fill in the gaps huhhh. As far as measuring air temp. a rudimentary device was built by philo http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=qfmS7g4JzjwC&dq=Principles+and+Methods+of+Temperature+Measurement&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=3rLkeqdZz5&sig=tV2YrszNevkr61Eatbrk0YDiB4A&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. of course avic. had access to these works also. Last, but not least these early devices are not thermometers, but more accurately thermascope's. any comments

as far as your knew contribution, well once again filled with some distortions as usual. Heron also conducted experiments on voids, but of course his don't count right, because as you would have us believe muslims invented experiments, right lol, but that's soon going to be addressed. Ya conducted the first experiments on a void, really were does it say that in the Stanford source specifically, as far as the other source Zahoor thats just a plain joke, kind of like you. Last but not least, this contribution is absolutely worthless to the history of thermodynamics. Why, simple show me the connection between this and thermodynamics, list one source that links this as being important to thermodynamics. Ideas on voids were just ideas, based on Greek philosophy. all the early ref. on this page are just precursor ideas to thermo., ideas like voids or atomic philosophy, not thermo. itself. what makes this contribution even more worthless is the fact he conducted "experiment", and i use the word loosely not experiments, he used them to demonstrate something totally untrue, vaccum's can exist. The vacuum is has some relevance to thermo. because it helped stimulate the invention of the steam engine, and allowed for the investigation of gasses, all of which stimulated the study of thermo., this is why as far as the vacuum is concerned only the invention of it is relevant, since its a tool that aided the rise of thermo., "experiment" that went to prove that a vacuum can't exist have no relevance. Conducting "experiment" that verify incorrect conclusions is plain worthless, it doesnt move sience forward but actually backwards by reinforcing flawed conclusions. Ahhh what a monumental contribution he used water plungers to prove the exact opposite of what is true. You've really outdone yourself here jagged lol. So pretty much this little bit is gone unless you can find some respectable source linking this to thermodynamics, which of course you can't because you yourself know very well you just pulled this from thin air and tried listing it as contribution.

You also listed this little duzy "The transition from alchemy to chemistry began during the Middle Ages, with the introduction of an experimental scientific method by Geber,[8][9] and scientific refutations of alchemy by other Arabic chemists such as Alkindus,[10] Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī,[11] Avicenna[12] and Ibn Khaldun." Firstly, the transition occurred in the 17th century., name some respectable sources that make that claim, and respectable jagged is one dealing with the history of chemistry and science not books that,although valid sources, are not about science and making glancing acknowledgments about, you seem to have a problem with. Secondly show me how any of them actually contributed to thermodynamics, listed respectable sources. The info. you listed here is important to chemistry not thermo.. Thermo. is part of physics and i ask again listed each of their specific contributions to thermodynamics, with respectable sources backing it up. your logic for listing this just plain flawed and its something comparable to one writing on the history of the automobile about the Assyrian invention of the wheel. Ya a wheel is used in a car just like many other components but it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the invention of the car. The comparison is made for this reason, ya things like thermometers. and methods of chemistry are used in thermo., like other sciences but its doesn't mean their contributions to the science of thermo. those methods are also used in quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, relativity etc does that mean they also made a contribution to those fields as well, no, clearly not. This is some really sad logic jagged. If you wanna list any of the worthless claims you made here you'r gonna require respectable sources that say this individual did such and such and this is how it contributed to thermodynamics, not spinning, which of course you do to no end. I don't care about you interpretation, find me a respectable source that links this to thermodynamics, quote one for me please, am dying to know. Am now also making changes to the thermometer part as well, since you wont, and you better start looking for better sources on this device cause this ain't cutting it sorry

I included the Arabic contributions to the prehistory of thermodynamics for the same reason you choose to include the Greek contributions. I sense double-standards coming from you... How is Al-Farabi's experiments on the vacuum any less relevant than Aristotle's theory on the void? The Greek contributions are also irrelevant to the prehistory of thermodynamics according to your own twisted logic. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

what study on magnetism, list the contributions here, what was added to the study of magnetism. Using a compass doesn't mean that you made contributions to magnetism. The chinese invented the compass, does that mean they studied magnetism. The first mention of the compass even occurs in Europe before Muslim lands as being used for navigation, does that mean they also contributed to the study of magnetism. The first surviving treaty on magnetism, dealing specifically with the property of magnets was made by Peter of Maricourt, and the first scientific study only occurred under William Gilbert. Just because they used compasses for navigation doesnt mean they contributed to magnetism, since compasses were being used for navigation long ago, yet you dont see anyone witting that medieval European s and Chinese making contributions to the study of magnetism. So i repeat what contributions, and using compasses doesnt count cause compasses were neither invented in by muslims or the first to use them for navigational purposes, both things occurred previously in other societies, yet they are not listed as contributions. Using compasses for astronomical purposes doesnt contribute to magnetism, its just using a device in conjunction with astronomy, doesnt mean the compass or magnets were studied. And once again the Chinese first used compasses with astronomy, using the concept of the the true north, yet thats not listed as a contribution to study magnetism since that would require studying magnets specifically for the purpose of understanding its properties and so forth. I really do love you're pathetic logic jagged, so going to demonstrate another analogy to this dribble that you listed here. People used telescopes to study the stars, which use the property of light, does that mean that anyone that used a telescope or anything magnifying object were studying light as well and contributed to its study, heron built the aeophile does that mean he was studying properties of steam, heat, and thermodynamics. An even better analogy thats fits your twisted logic is like me saying right now, well am using a computer so therefore i am studying computer science and making a contribution to the field, even though i have no idea how it works. The obvious answer to all of these is clearly no. Same principle applies here just because you use a compass for navigation does'nt mean you are studying the properties of magnets or have any intention of doing so. So i ask again what contributions to magnetism, using astronomical concepts in conjunction with a compass were being used by the chinese and europeans long before any mention is made in the islamic world. The whole idea of the compass and astronomical concepts being used for navigation was always used by mariner's that used it to travel, in fact thats the genesis compass navigation. So list what contributions were made to the study of magnets, and knew ideas about astronomy with compasses that are knew and not used by the chinese or europeans. You dont get points for doing and rewriting ideas and methods that were used before by other society's. That is essentially taking credit for others "achievements" and claiming them as your own. Needless to say unless you got some no proof here of knew ideas about the properties of magnets, or for that matter the compass and how it relates to astronomy that are original, this aint gonna cut it. This whole things is being moved to the islamic geography section, since you haven't provided anything on this study of magnetism, and compasses, and again they would have to be original,, not things already done by others before. In fact jagged, although its clear there was no study of magnetism, there was also no study of the compass either, but show the contributions to the study of the compass if you can lol. This whole thing is just turning into a massive farce. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your accusation that the Magnetism section is somehow trying to take "credit" for others "achievements" is utterly ridiculous. Maybe you should learn how to read before making such ridiculous accusations, because the section clearly stated that the Arabs learnt of the compass from China. Whether the Arabs made any original contributions to the study of magnetism is irrelevant. The fact that they even studied the magnetic properties of the compass is enough, and the same goes for the Chinese and Europeans who also studied the magnetic properties of the compass at the time. Jagged 85 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

jagged notice how i put the word achievement in quotations. That's because their not really achievements. Using a compass for navigation doesn't mean that you are studying the property's of magnets. As far as original contributions being irrelevant, without going into a massive tirade how absolutely ridiculous that statement is, it does matter, it matters a lot, that's the whole basis of history, we want to know what happened and where, and specifically in the history if science we want to know what was done by who and when. Following your rational would be like saying ya its irrelevant whether newton published his laws of motion and it should not get any special historical treatment. You new magnetism section is a little tighter, but is still has some obvious flaws and again it being originality. Here's a small list:

"Arabic writers were aware of magnetism since the 9th century, when Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes) wrote a treatise on the subject. In the 12th century, Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) described the properties of magnets and its attraction towards iron.[134] Like some of the ancient Greek philosophers, the early Islamic philosophers were also aware of the properties of natural plastic amber, and they observed that it can draw up small bits of paper"

-both of the fact that magnets attract iron and amber attracting paper has been known since the 7th century BC

"The first astronomical uses of the magnetic compass is also found in a treatise on astronomical instruments written by the Yemeni sultan al-Ashraf (d. 1296 AD) in 1282 AD (681 AH). This was the first reference to the compass in astronomical literature"

-how does this contribute to magnetism, magnetism has nothing to do with astronomy

"Al-Ashraf's compass used a steel needle magnetized by rubbing with a magnetic stone, due to steel needles keeping their magnetic property longer than iron needles. Al-Ashraf also provides detailed explanations on the magnetic properties of the needle. He was aware that when the end rubbed with the magnetic stone, that each head retains its attraction to turn north or south, referring to the fact that the head of the needle which is not rubbed has also changed its behavior"

-all these ideas were known when the first compasses were used for navigation and rubbing of a needle with magnets was known and stated by Louen-heng in 100AD, and stated explicitly by Peter Peregrinus in his treatise, which of course pre-dates Al-Ashraf. You also say detailed properties of magnetic needle, alright, what are they?

"Muslim astronomers were aware of magnetic declination by the 15th century, when the Egyptian astronomer 'Izz al-Din al-Wafa'i (d. 1469/1471) measured it as 7 degrees from Cairo."

-that's been known since Shen Kuo and explicitly stated by Peter Peregrinus almost 300 years before

To keep things short, originality and being the first to it does count, there is nothing wrong with what you listed here except that these are all "contribution" if we can even call it that, were all known long before their appearance in the islamic world and none of them actually gives an understanding of magnetism, all thats being described here is facts about a compass not magnets I think this whole section is would be more appropriately named on something to do with a compass rather then magnetism.

Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your entire argument is based on the flawed assumption that only "firsts" are worthy of mention. This is not a list of inventions or discoveries, so your entire argument regarding the Magnetism section is not valid. Any material related to physics in the medieval Islamic world, whether original or derivative, is valid in this article. This is not some kind of Whig history article, where only develoments progressing towards our modern science are worthy of attention. This article is about a specific culture, and those Muslim writers were indeed making "contributions" to their own culture; being the "first" within their own culture is also worthy of attention. Also, the section's title should remain "Magnetism" as the medieval Muslims were clearly aware of what magnetism was, just as the Greeks, Chinese and Europeans were aware of magnetism. In fact, the magnetic compass is always included under a "magnetism" label in Chinese science related articles. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

-i have made edits to the air thermometer section. The simple reason is that Avic. device could not measure temperature. The concept of temperature is actually a fairly recent innovation. The idea of sensible heat has been known since the dawn of the simplest organisms. The idea of temperature as we understand it, that goes beyond sensible heat was first put forward by Galileo. The first formal and scientifically based temp. scale was the Fahrenheit scale and the absolute temp. scale was invented by Lord Kelvin. Before that no way of measuring temp. existed, even Galileo never formulated one. Secondly, Avic. device was a thermoscope, which by its definition can not measure temp, follow link:http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/THERMOSCOPE.

-also the listing that this was the first thermoscope and that Avic. was the first employ it is also not backed up by your sources and not backed up the general context of history, follow this link:http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0953-2048/4/11/040/su911140.pdf?request-id=5e7b8ab2-e39f-41c9-9454-ea09e8198113

-am going to be making contributions to the history of the thermometer page and i have'nt been able to find any info. on Avic. device am counting on you to find one that describes his device, how it worked, and other general info. since you made the posts about it originally, so you should have no problems getting these sources for me.

Also i have said this before but am going to warn you again stop making modern interpretations of past devices, just because a modern version of device can do something it doesnt mean the older ones can Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the claim that ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) invented the thermometer. See Talk:Thermometer and User:Syncategoremata/Ibn Sīnā and the invention of the thermometer for more details. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"The first suction pump, a device which sucks fluids into a partial vacuum, was invented in 1206 by the Arabian engineer and inventor, Al-Jazari. The suction pump later appeared in Europe from the 15th century."

-i have deleted this from that page because it contains factually inaccurate material, which is not backed up the sources listed. Neither of your source state that Al-Jazari's suction pumps created partial vacuum. You are correct in saying that a suction pipe can create a partial vacuum, but that just modern suction pumps, and even many modern cannot create one. Most importantly neither if your sources make that claim, so there is no reason to believe Al-Jazari's did, you are going to require a respectable source to back that up, you can't just assume because your making the assumption that his suction pipes resembled modern ones. -lastly, the creation of a partial vacuum is not something all entirely knew, they can be created by a syringe without a design alter, follow this link: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/boylingwater/boylingwater.html. In fact most suction devices can create a partial vacuum. Heron invented the first syringe, follow this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria#Inventions_and_achievements Your free to list the fact that Al-Jazari invented a suction pipe, but not a partial vacuum since you don't have a source to back that claim up. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The definition of Islam is subservience and submitting to a deity. The contents of this article have nothing to do with the title. There are several reasons the title should be changed:

• There is no such thing as medieval Islam.
• The page demonstrates scientists operating within and accross geographic boundaries of the Caliphate, without apparent religious influence.
• The contents on this page can only be defined as dealing with scientists operating within and accross geographic boundaries of the Caliphate. However the heading in Islamic Golden Age says "Muslim scientists influenced societies on every continent."
• The title is the equivalent of calling special relativity the jewish theory because it was discovered by Einstein (a Jew)
• 10% of Arabs to this day are Christian. There were and still are half a dozen other Religions in the Middle East
• Widespread persecution and dhimmitude forced many to conceal their faiths, while others were secular, non-practising or syncretic muslims.
• An example of such misrepresentation is Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi 10th century ex-muslim atheist scientist, who is nonetheless described as muslim in several articles and even has his image included here and here.
• Another example of such misrepresentation is the inclusion of Al Battani and Thabit ibn Qurra as Muslims even though they are Sabians whih is gioven a different category in islam.
• The current title is misleading.
• A 'muslim scientist' and science in Islam are two different things.
• Medieval is a period of European history which has nothing to do with Arab or middle eastern caliphates.

I propose the title be changed to Physics in the Caliphate. The religious aspect of this title has to be changed unless we can find a link between tafsir, hadith, sira or other Islamic textbooks with the contents of this article. Diversely there has to be evidence this Islamic scholarship here was actually working under the banner of Islam. Many of you might remember User talk:Jagged 85 and the full report of his notoriously catastrophic editing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 on articles such as this who's mess is still everywhere. There are many external links who have complained about the same thing, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Someone65 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I support a rename but do not want to express an opinion on the new name at the moment. I have previously opposed the inclusion of a religion in the infobox for scientists unless a really reliable source states that the religion was important to the work of the scientist. All the more so for an article title. Is there a reliable source indicating that physics was somehow different for Catholics and Muslims? I can understand an historical treatment, but do we have sources showing there is good reason to have a history of Catholic physics as well as a history of Islamic physics?

These are the articles with "medieval Islam" in the title:

• Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam
• Astronomy in medieval Islam
• Geography and cartography in medieval Islam
• Hindu and Buddhist contribution to science in medieval Islam
• Inventions in medieval Islam
• Mathematics in medieval Islam
• Medicine in medieval Islam
• Ophthalmology in medieval Islam
• Physics in medieval Islam
• Psychology in medieval Islam
• Science in medieval Islam
• Sociology in medieval Islam

I don't want to make this too complex, but should there be a consideration of the other titles at the same time? Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm in perfect agreement with you--Chrono1084 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There does need to be name change because it makes the arguement that Islamic scholars operated in a seperate sphere outside of other influences. This name also make an arguement that there was a Christian or Judaic competition with Islam, more should be added about Jewish contributions, like Maimonides, from Spain to indicate a wide exchange of ideas throughout the Islamic Empire. Another loose term which too could be clarified in the title, what time period for this Islamic Physics?Boyd8420 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to get into an edit war here, but I see the article has been gutted twice in the last month and I'm not sure why. I simply surfed in from another wiki article and found ... nothing related to my link. Then in the history I learned that the related content had been gutted. I won't sit here and fuss with y'all about it, but there are dozens of wiki articles linked to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Physics_in_medieval_Islam and they would each need servicing to provide a new place to link. In the meantime, clobbering this article isn't ... well it doesn't seem right/productive, to me. Altering it to make improvements would seem better, but that's just my two cents. I don't know what the dispute is about, I found a page about that guy mentioned and it's just full of numbers. I hope you guys can take the other articles into consideration when you decide what to do about this one - taking the whole page down just seems pretty extreme. Thanks. Tkech (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup for an overview of why some fairly large deletions are occurring. I haven't yet had time to assess the edits in this particular article, but in general, massive distortions have been introduced into many articles over the last five years, and the cleanup will be ongoing for some time. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding. Yes, I saw the thing about jagged (tho your link is different -and far more informative- than the other 2 I tried.) I'm just saying that the best interim approach may not be to remove the bulk of the article. Can't it just get a big fat flag at the top like many other wikipedia articles? I mean no offense, and if the policy for handling this has already been decided elsewhere, then ... *shrug*. This is only my two cents, I'm kibitzing from the sidelines. :-) Tkech (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Johnunig but even more with Srleffler. This article is a shame, it's made of so many inaccuracies that it would be best to delete as much as Srleffler did than and start over than to leave it like that.--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done Y Aristotelian physics (history of science)‎ is under going a lot of work that could be used as a guide to expand this page.J8079s (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the way, WP:Jagged 85 cleanup is now a redirect to the summary "Cleanup" page which explains the background. It also has a search box at the bottom (I just used it to find that Aristotelian physics is listed at Cleanup4). Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand that the user who contributed to this article has been deemed unreliable, and I entirely understand the wish of concerned parties to make it right. But in the meantime there are 159(?) other wikipedia articles linking to this article. People who surf in to this article are left hanging: "where is the content relevant to my subject?" That worries me, because that's how I got here. Do these other 159 articles rate some consideration from the editors here? (I do not mean this sarcastically - I genuinely do not know.) Is there some wiki policy that covers the problem of a (nearly) deleted article that is linked from many others? It would seem this should be addressed in some way. Tkech (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Likewise I do not know the best strategy. There is good evidence that many of Jagged's claims are incorrect or undue – should we quickly remove similar text on the basis that it may mislead readers, or should we keep it unless we can prove the text is misleading and we simultaneously fix the problems you mention, like "what links here"? There is no good answer. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming that editors conducting the deletions read every sentence they deleted. Then, instead of blanking most of the article, why don't you, as you're reading the article, remove material that to you seems to be a violation of DUE or NOR. After all, we should use common sense. And I have enough good faith that you will not deny the fact that medieval Muslims made at least some contributions in physics.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article has little content but strangely enough, too many references. I don't think that it's possible that all those references were actually used to write this paragraph of an article. I'm going to tag this article with {{Islam-stub}} and {{citecheck}}. This article needs much more actual content to be considered notable. Oxguy3 tc 02:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because the article was stubbed (see above) but the refs were kept. [5] is the last unstubbed version, I think. You may find useful material in there if you wish to expand the article, but be cautious, as much (or, perhaps more accurately, an unknown amount) of it may be unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reference i added was an extension of the information provided about Taqi al-Din and Al-Jazari, both of them are credited to have invented very complex mechanical devices...if you look in the main article you will find the words kinematics, dynamics and fluid mechanics and calculations related to them that would allow the "monobloc pump" to function along with the entire machine.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the reference at all...unless you explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughal Lohar (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of websites which promote all sorts of views, and many of those sites are not suitable for use on Wikipedia as a reliable source—articles should be based on scholarly research by recognized authorities. Muslimheritage.com is one of those sites which previous discussion has agreed is not suitable. That discussion has occurred in a number of places including here and here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

physicsworld.com online lecture

On the Shoulders of Eastern Giants: the Forgotten Contributions of Medieval Physicists

presented by Jim Al-Khalili

Date: Thursday 20 October 2011 Time: 4.00 p.m. BST

Free online registration http://www.myecos.co.uk/DC/ctr.aspx?6C6164=31333236363035&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&747970=7478&66=30

We learn at school that Newton is the father of modern optics, Copernicus heralded the birth of astronomy and Snell deduced the law of refraction. But what debt do these men owe to the physicists and astronomers of the medieval Islamic Empire? What about Ibn al-Haytham, the greatest physicist in the 2000-year span between Archimedes and Newton, whose Book of Optics was just as influential as Newton's seven centuries later? Or Ibn Sahl, who came up with the correct law of refraction many centuries before Snell? What of the astronomers al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir, without whom Copernicus would not have been able to formulate his heliocentric model of the solar system? In this lecture, Jim Al-Khalili recounts the stories of these characters and more from his new book Pathfinders: the Golden Age of Arabic Science.

Register today http://www.myecos.co.uk/DC/ctr.aspx?6C6164=31333236363035&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&747970=7478&66=30

>> Speaker: Jim Al-Khalili Jim Al-Khalili is a physicist, author and broadcaster. He is professor of physics and also professor of public engagement in science at the University of Surrey, UK. As well as his work on radio and television, he has written a number of popular-science books, the most recent of which is Pathfinders: the Golden Age of Arabic Science. His awards include the Royal Society Faraday Prize (2008), the IOP Kelvin Medal (2011), an OBE in 2008 and a Bafta nomination.

>> Moderator: Dr Margaret Harris Reviews and careers editor, Physics World

Forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues. http://www.myecos.co.uk/DC/fwd.aspx?646C76=313332393832&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&66=30

Or why not share on Facebook or Twitter? Facebook: http://www.myecos.co.uk/SocialMedia/FBShare.aspx?646C76=cdpg8t4vTYQ=&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&737263=1&747970=31 Twitter: http://www.myecos.co.uk/SocialMedia/retweet.aspx?646C76=cdpg8t4vTYQ=&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&737263=2&747970=31

• • On the Shoulders of Eastern Giants:

the Forgotten Contributions of Medieval Physicists**

Thursday 20 October 2011 4.00 p.m. BST

Free online registration http://www.myecos.co.uk/DC/ctr.aspx?6C6164=31333236363035&736272=$$E48E9XmQ16LgEEE&747970=7478&66=30

A big part of physics in the medieval times was astronomy. People were still trying to figure out exactly how the heavens worked, and this included Islamic thinkers. There are many Islamic astronomers who contributed their own ideas regarding Aristotelian and Ptolemaic astronomical physics and even came up with their own theories and systems. Their identities and ideas can be documented on this article. This article is mainly a list of references and does not include very much content. Much more can be written regarding this subject. I realize that this will not completely fill the article, but if other editors contribute to this article bit by bit then the article can be more comprehensive. Khan ali10 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Count Iblis (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that the original article before they shortened it was too long and like several people have mentioned, at least half of this is just reference. I was bored reading the original article after reading the first two sections. When I think of articles on Wikipedia, I think of articles that pull the reader in and the reader feels that they learn something by the end of the article; the original article did not do that to me at all, in fact I felt like I was reading a textbook for a class. I was thinking of editing this page for a school project, so any suggestions that fellow editors have are more than welcomed.

Denn4657 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

First, I think there are a lot of things in your introduction that belong in separate sections. I think the starting sentence of an article should define or identify the topic rather than cite people who were in some way involved in it. Maybe you could include a "People" section or something.

You make certain normative claims ("During this time, Islam was a religion of knowledge", "These works... were the wellspring of science") which you do cite, but state as if they were factual. It would be more appropriate to say, for example, "certain scholars have described Islam in this period as a religion of knowledge" followed by your citation.

I know this article is a work in progress, but it seems a little lopsided that the only one of the several subdomains of physics you mention which has its own section is optics. Even cursory sections on other topics would make the article feel much more solid.

Lastly, there were some comments a few years back suggesting a name change for this article. It might be worth considering the arguments presented there and either cite specific examples of Islam playing a direct role in the development of science or changing the name of the article to "Science in the _ Caliphate" or "Science in the Medieval Middle-East" or something similar. Not all of the scientists working during this period were Islamic, and even for those that were, it remains to be shown (at least in this article) that their science and religion were related.

All of this being said, the article is solid and Denn4657's edits are a massive improvement on what was here previously. Right now the article contains some relevant info and provides a good skeleton for future improvements. Logo Aesthesis (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your criticism, but like someone pointed out to whoever suggested the title change, you may as well go to the other pages that uses 'Medieval Islam' as part of their title. As I have learned by doing this article, it is a reference to the time period. Denn4657 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

There has been discussion over the title of many of the "in medieval Islam" pages - partly because they have been used as "boosterism" platforms. It is certainly true that there are arguments on both sides, but "medieval Islam" is a well understood concept (see book titles such as The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity : Proceedings ... ). If a well thought out alternative name were to gain consensus, that would be fine too. I might suggest, for example, Physics under medieval Islam. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

I checked the source "Avempace, Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory", and Wikipedia currently bluntly misinterpret it. If you check the article, Franco discuss Shlomo Pines proposition, that Avempace's idea of fatigue is a precursor to Leibnizian idea of fource, which according to him(Pines), underlies Newton third law of motion and the concept of "reaction" of forces. Franco then shows that this is actually not the case, and there is a huge difference between Newton and Avempace. DMKR2005 (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

So the problem is that Physics in the medieval Islamic world#Reaction claims that Ibn Bajjah proposed something that was a precursor to Newton's laws of motion#Third. Ibn Bajjah is a redirect to Avempace and that article makes the same claim with the same reference. The same claim and reference are in Science in the medieval Islamic world and searching might find more. I see from your contributions that you are familiar with the boosterism of WP:Jagged 85 cleanup. Given that you are satisfied that the source does not verify the claim (or perhaps verifies a very small and WP:UNDUE portion of it), please remove the claim and the reference from any articles where you can find it. You might refer to this section in an edit summary: [[Talk:Physics in the medieval Islamic world#Ibn Bajjah and Reaction]] Thanks for your work, and let me know if you find any problems requiring assistance. Dragoon17 may have more information on this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@DMKR2005: I agree with you that the source is misrepresented, here and elsewhere, and presents Moody's views with Franco's article without mentioning that Franco's article largely refutes Moody's views. I will edit pages that use that source as I come to them. The physics section on Avempace itself could use quite a bit of work, really. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply