Talk:Clifford Truesdell

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Fluid Dynamics / Biographies Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Untitled

Hi, I noticed that the external link to Ball's article on Truesdell was broken. Here is a link address that works :

http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~ball/Miscelleaneous%20Articles/truesdell.pdf

I did not make the change. Thanks, Terry Bisson 138.92.13.85 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me, but I'm testing it from the campus of a University that probably has access to the journal. Can someone test the link and see if it works for them? --Charlesreid1 (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf download and the two links all work for me just now.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi eveyrone. I'm new here so I don't want to change things yet, until I learn the ways of the platform. I just wanted to say that TIP might be abbreviation for "Thermodynamically Irreversible Processes". I saw that clarification is needed. Regards,

Mirkola (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

The whole second section has real problems. Sentences like "This must explain why in his Rational Thermodynamics monograph he writes such nonsense as that temperature is given by "a real number", when any student of sciences or engineering knows that a physical quantity as temperature is not given by a number alone." are clearly not okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizobullet (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you qoute is particularly egregious. It also doesn't add much in way of content, regardless of the POV issues. it should be removed. 129.241.135.192 (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the unsourced egregious sentence. Salih (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"His 'rational' thermodynamics has been abandoned by almost all scientists and engineers, due to its empirical falsification, its internal inconsistencies, and ambiguities." This is inappropriate. "Abandoned by almost all scientists and engineers"? "Empirical falsification"? These are statements of opinion and oughtn't be presented as fact. --Mr legumoto (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to renaming the "Rational thermodynamic failure and polemics" section as "Criticisms of Rational Thermodynamics"? --Mr legumoto (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to post a note of appreciation to those who have been keeping an eye on this entry. I felt it was inappropriate for me to make any editorial changes (I'm Clifford Truesdell V) but its pretty clear that someone with a questionable agenda had been altering the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2200:50B:99B9:22C3:2412:C875 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in editing an article about your grandfather. In some aspects, you will be better qualified than most editors. Registering an account and signing with your name will make your position evident, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the section on "Criticisms of Rational Thermodynamics" (besides being a sequence of statements still lacking factual literary references) should belong to the Wiki article on Rational Thermodynamics rather than to Truesdell's biography. Its placement as *second* section is in any case ridiculous in a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.123.1 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The whole section feels out of place especially considering it being the only non-bibliographic one.

Truesdell certainly did not shy away from academic confrontation, but the section makes it seem rather one-sided and too personal. For a more nuanced, albeit still personal, recounting of his scientific work, I would recommend Ch. 5.2—3 in "Continuum Mechanics Through the Twentieth Century: A concise Historical Perspective" by G. A. Maugin.

It is also rather curious that this section mostly consists of sources related to a singular author and scientific "opponent", namely Ingo Müller, which only furthers the impression of a personal attack. PolyconvexPoster (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of discussed section

I performed the 2 changes evoked at the end of the above section "POV issues":

changed section title to "Critics of Truesdell's Support of Rational thermodynamic"

("Critics of Rational thermodynamic" would have been misleading, meaning critics by Truesdell)

removed unneutral & unreferenced sentence (previously 1st sentence in section)

denis 'spir' (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the least objective parts of the disputed section, and also added the mentioned references. Nicoguaro (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clifford Truesdell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402030542/http://www.dm.unito.it/convegniseminari/truesdell/truesdell.htm to http://www.dm.unito.it/convegniseminari/truesdell/truesdell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Thermodynamics / Objectivity

I would propose to remove the section on 'Criticism of Truesdell's support of rational thermodynamics', since its purpose on a page on Truesdell himself is unclear, it lacks proper referencing on the part of the critics, and the criticism is not well substantiated or even incorrect.

While perusing the chapter '"Rational" Thermodynamics' in the book by Lavenda, cited in the corresponding section of the Wiki page, I have not found a statement that reads close to "[i]f there is something rational in rational thermodynamics, it is well-hidden". Since no page number is provided in the reference, it is even harder to understand, how such a harsh claim could be substantiated.

The article by Rivlin 'On red herrings and other sundry unidentified fish in modern continuum mechanics' can certainly be interpreted as criticism towards Truesdell's mode of research, but it is not at all a refutation of the whole of Rational Thermodynamics.

The discussion on the principle of frame-indifference sparked by the paper "On the Frame Dependence of Stress and Heat Flux" by Müller in 1972, has been resolved in favor of the principle, as far as I can tell. Wood admits in 1983 at the end of the paper 'Frame-indifferent kinetic theory, that

'[p]rofessor A. E. Green and I recently debated several axioms of continuu mmechanics (Woods 1981, 1982b; Green 1982), an important one being material frame-indifference. I a m pleased to acknowledge that for this axiom his convictions were sound, whereas my confidence in the opposing evidence from kinetic theory etc. was misplaced.'

It is then unclear why the original paper by Müller should be relevant to the discussion of the validity of Rational Thermodynamics. Coincidentally, the now refuted claim by Müller is repeated in his book "A History of Thermodynamics" from 2007, which serves as the central quote in the corresponding section on the Wiki page. PolyconvexPoster (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]