Talk:Mikhail Lomonosov

comments
Wouldn't the links around atmosphere and venus better point to a page on "the atmosphere of Venus" whcih itself might well point on to pages on "atmosphere" and the rest of th planet?

Unfortunately I know nothing about that atmosphere...

Removing Category:Russian Artists
i think because of his mosaics he should be an artist category. I do not like russian painters as he did not paint, should we reverse Category:Russian artists?

Lomonosov as a visual artist
Lomonosov was prod to be the first in Russia and one of the first in Europe to restore the ancient art of mosaics. He produced quite a few of them including the Poltava battle depicted on the article. It is in every bio book on Lomonosov abakharev 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Lomonosov as first to state conservation of matter law?
This is asserted in several places, but it's not well known. I think it needs to have some backup in this history of Lomonosov, including his exact statement of it, something about his experimental reasons for thinking it, and where he published (we have all that for Lavoisier). Instead, there's hardly anything about it in this history of Lomonosov. If this man really came up with the idea first, it's his most imporant lifetime achievement (since it is a basic conservation law which enabled the science of chemistry to develop from alchemy) so there had better be more about it in the Lomonosov history, if this is to be matter-of-factly asserted in discussions of the conservation laws. Sbharris 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Short answer is no.


 * Firstly, ever since antiquity, mass has long been "reasoned" to be conserved (e.g. atomists). If anything, early "scientists" subscribed to the principle too dogmatically in the face of contrary evidence (the loss of mass by clean-burning charcoal, and the gain of mass by heating metals, despite that, according to the best theory of the time, both reactions consisted only of the release of phlogiston).


 * In 1673, Boyle found that heating a metal in a sealed glass vessel still causes the metal itself to increase in weight. Boyle explained this by arguing that some particles perculate in through the glass and adhere to the metal. Noting how (the content and existence of) this explanation demonstrates that scientists far-preceding Lomonosov already (at least implicitly) took mass-conservation for granted. Source: J. Shectman, Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the 18th Century, Greenwood 2003 p.127 . (Other contemporary examples Black's experiments concerning carbon dioxide and the lime cycle, or Helmont's re-weighing of soil to determine how much of other materials a tree had absorbed.)


 * In 1756, Lomonosov tried to repeat Boyle's experiment. What Lomonosov weighed (before and after) was the metal itself, not the entire apparatus (so it was the wrong experiment for proving the extra mass was subtracted from the air). Moreoever, Lomonosov's scales were insufficiently sensitive to detect the small amount of calcification (hence he incorrectly claimed to have refuted Boyle's original result). Shortly following this, what Lomonosov did propose was the opposite of mass-conservation: that an object could be made to weigh more just by rearranging its surface atoms! Source: P. Pomper, Lomonosov and the Discovery of the Law of the Conservation of Matter in Chemical Transformations, Ambix 10.3 (1962) pp.119–127.


 * The one who modified the experiment by weighing the whole apparatus (showing that this is constant, and that the increased weight in the calcified metal is balanced by a depletion of a portion of the enclosed air) was Lavoisier, not Lomonosov. (And Lavoisier is credited for following up by successfully replacing phlogiston-theory with oxidation.) The myth that Lomonosov deserves credit for mass-conservation has been attributed to over-zealous Soviet historians (such as Menshutkin). The word "propagandist" is used in M. Huncovsky Lavoisier and Chemical Revolution. Was Hankins Correct?


 * So yeah, the current article is hagiography, and needs balancing somehow. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So Lavoisier was also not the one who discovered the law, because people unconciously knew it before ?

Please. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PAGE NEEDS EDITING
This page is a mess. Whoever put it together obviously doesn't speak much English. Someone should start over entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.125.46 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lomonosov at National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Lomonosov was a srudent of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Please read his biography, for instance here: http://ssga.ru/erudites_info/peoples/lomonosov/part01.html. He was a student in Kiev only for a short time. Moreover, there is a plaque on modern Kyiv-Mohyla Academy commemorating this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plaque_of_Lomonosov.JPG Silin2005 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further evidence is here (in Ukrainian) http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/ua/general/history/professors/lomonos/index.php Silin2005 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put the info in the article. In future try to reference your edits and make sure that categories are supported by the text of the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

cites needed
This guy is really interesting. I hope someone can help the article.J8079s (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lomonosov vs. Ben Franklin
They were born just a couple years apart, live din the same times, both were one of greatest mene who ever lived. But who is THE greatest of the two? :) Who was ґsmarterґ, wiser, contributed more, etc? I root for Ben. --KpoT (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Of course, Lomonosov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.231.0 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Lomonosov
Pomors are considered as a sub-group of Russians, but this does not contradicts to the fact that Lomonosovs were a Pomor family. By analogy, nobody contests that Jan van Eyck was Flemish, and it does not matter, are Flemings a subdivision of some broader nation (such as Dutch people or Belgians) or not. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pomor family, aright. So what? Pomor family is not independent ethnos. Pomors are ethnographic group russians; she included in russian ethnos and ≠ individual «Ethnicity».
 * The Flemings are ethnos; theirs 7,5~ million people, pomors only 6~ thousand. This is not analogy, this wp:or.
 * Russian ethnicity scientist - the fact; pomors «Ethnicity» - wp:or. 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.171.134 (talk)

Menshutkin ref
I switched this ref over to Sfn. Only about half of these contained page numbers included by the original editor, Historybuff2283, who is now inactive. The others just referenced the book without giving a page number. I just left the page param blank in these cases. I Never  Cry  00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there any other source to access his biography? Most of the information is cited from that source. EkaterinaMir (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism?
I read some criticism of Lomonosov, namely that his contributions to science were not significant, and much of their significance was drummed up retroactively. Does anyone more knowledgeable on the subject know about these claims? How common are they and do they merit inclusion in the article? —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat hagiographic
He anticipated the discoveries of Lavoisier AND got close to the idea of continental drift. It sounds a bit too good to be true. How does the hypothesis of an unknown continental get close to continental drift? This makes me suspicious about the rest of the article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse me
I ask moderators to restore a portrait of Lomonosov. I spoiled a portrait mistakenly.Valery Staricov (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Usitalo isn't quoted
The main source is a Soviet book published under Stalin. Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mikhail Lomonosov. 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://archive.is/20130704225233/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i2/p64_s1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i2/p64_s1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111224004/http://www.zoohall.com.ua/leftframes/ecolog/greenplanet/jizn1.htm to http://www.zoohall.com.ua/leftframes/ecolog/greenplanet/jizn1.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.eduard-belcher.org/belcher-stati5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626010846/http://www.tallinnstreets.com/ to http://www.tallinnstreets.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The soul of Galileo lives again in the Russian Lomonosov
Just adding this because it is so amazing. Rudolf Steiner mentions (in 1917-01-15-GA174) that Lomonosov (1711-1765) is the reincarnation of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): "The soul of Galileo lives again in the Russian Lomonosov". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:5382:4F00:49E2:82F8:67A0:736A (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Monument to Mikhail Lomonosov on Sparrow Hills.png