From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeGravity was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

General Rewrite Suggestions for Accuracy, Brevity, and Clarity[edit]

Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

As a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Science and a student editor with Wiki Education Foundation, I have chosen to focus on reviewing and improving this article. When reviewing articles, my guiding objectives are to improve the "ABCs" of the article accuracy, brevity, and clarity. In this interest, the following suggestions are put forth:

1. "On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects, and the Moon's gravity causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and for the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large scale structures in the Universe." (Introduction)
Proposed: "Earth's gravity gives weight to physical objects and the Moon's gravity causes the ocean tides. Gravity is also responsible for many of the large scale structures in the Universe because it causes gaseous matter to coalesce into stars which then form solar systems and galaxies according to their gravity."
Reasoning: Improves clarity and brevity of content.
2. Section 1.1 title: "Scientific Revolution" (Section 1.1)
Proposed: Section 1.1 title "Galileo"
Reasoning: All content in this section has to do directly with Galileo. The overall theme of the section is Galileo, not the Scientific Revolution.
3. "Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries." (Section 1.1)
Proposed: "Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries during the period known as the Scientific Revolution."
Reasoning: If suggestion 2 is followed, this would improve the accuracy of this section.
4. "Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted for by the actions of the other planets." (Section 1.2)
Proposed: "Newton's theory was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on observed motions of Uranus that could not be accounted for by the actions of the other planets."
Reasoning: Opinions such as "greatest success" should be avoided when stating facts.
5. "The application of Newton's law of gravity has enabled the acquisition of much of the detailed information we have about the planets in the Solar System, the mass of the Sun, and details of quasars; even the existence of dark matter is inferred using Newton's law of gravity." (Section 2.3)
Proposed: "Our knowledge of gravity has led to scientific breakthroughs concerning our Sun and planets in our Solar System, quasars, and even dark matter."
Reasoning: Improves brevity and accuracy by removing unsupported content. I challenge that these breakthroughs are the result of Newton's law of gravity specifically, and pose that these breakthroughs are more result of our general understanding of gravity including both Newtonian and Einsteinian contributions.
6. "In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole collision. On 14 September 2015, LIGO registered gravitational waves for the first time, as a result of the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years from Earth." (Section 2.4)
Proposed: "In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had detected gravitational waves for the first time on 14 September 2015 as a result of the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years from Earth.
Reasoning: Improves brevity.

- Catwilsonaz (talk)

Gravity vs distance[edit]

Planet gravity vs distance.svg
This curve represents gravity between objects when the distance is increasing. The force of gravity fades gradually along an inverse square. Gravity generally decreases inside a body, shown here assuming constant density, where the curve drops off at a sharp angle. For comparison, including an actual density profile, see Earth gravity.

@Mfb: doesn't like my model gravity graphs, calling it nonsense and vandalism because it shows a constant gravity density inside a planet. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't show a constant gravity, it shows the gravity you would get with a constant density. As the actual distribution shows this is not a good approximation at all. If you go down into Earth the gravitational acceleration is actually increasing until you reach the core. --mfb (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "constant density". Tom Ruen (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually as you go down into the Earth the acceleration of gravity decreases to zero at the center because, by Gauss's law, at a subsurface point the gravitational force does not include the gravity of the spherical shell of matter outside that radius. The further you go down, the smaller the sphere of matter inside the radius, so the less the gravitational force. In a constant density planet the mass of the sphere of matter is proportional to R3 but the inverse square force adds a factor of R-2, so below the surface the force, and acceleration of gravity, is proportional to R3/R2 or R, and thus decreases linearly with radius, as the graph shows. --ChetvornoTALK 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: As you can see from the correct graph you are wrong. In a constant density planet you would be right but there is no such thing. The image shows real objects, so it should have real data (or omit the wrong part). --mfb (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say the Earth has constant density (it doesn't) I just said the graph was correct for a constant-density planet. --ChetvornoTALK 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You said "The further you go down [...] the less the gravitational force" which is false for a large part of the interior of Earth, for example. It is true in a hypothetical scenario that has little in common with our world. --mfb (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Instead of including the complication of gravity below the surface, why don't we just erase the straight parts of the graph and show the inverse square parts? --ChetvornoTALK 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: removing the straight lines would make a lot of sense. Start gravity upwards from surface. — JFG talk 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Chetvorno: Remove straight parts, keep inverse square parts. The gravity inside the planet is for the most part irrelevant. While theoretically correct in the case of a planet with constant density, and thus not "nonsense", the diagram is not particularly useful because those planets don't actually have constant density (and thus the field inside the planet does not drop linearly). If you find a reliable source showing a diagram of the gravitational fields inside those planets, it may be a worthy addition. Until then, no. Renerpho (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the outside inverse square parts. --mfb (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There are more correct graphs available, like the second one shown here. --Geek3 (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Gravitational field inside the earth.

Transitional state (physics)(s); the wavefunctional time-period a collapse lasts (which isn't the same for all observers, and that is one out of the many components of the phenomenon/processes of gravitation/gravity[edit]

Quantum mechanics is mostly (but not only) the field of study of states.
Gravity is mostly (but not only) the field of study of transitional states or semistates (make page).

example: most remote control buttons have only one permanent state (they might cotrol many states of a machine due to an algorithm, usually a physical algorithm); but the remote control buttons have transitional states 1. during the period we press and 2. release the button. The electric states are more important than the mechanism of the button; but even then, one transitional state does exist; and has a duration (it isn't instantaneous). THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8237:d400:4da2:87e:4fbc:47 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not theories of gravity itself. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to present your personal theories, see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --ChetvornoTALK 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So should the article call gravity a force or not?[edit]

I know there has been some discussion to remove references to gravity being a force, as it isn't a force according to general relativity. Why, then, does paragraph 3 refer to the fundamental forces and the strong force, when in fact those (redirected) articles are properly called Fundamental interaction and Strong interaction? Seems like this would be confusing to the reader who isn't sure what exactly gravity is. -Jordgette [talk] 14:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A very interesting article is here on the matter of the matter

Nature Astronomy, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0823-y Darwinerasmus (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

With link: Realistic simulations of galaxy formation in f(R) modified gravity. It is nice that it makes a testable prediction. We'll see what happens, for now it is still one of the more obscure approaches. --mfb (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Definition and meanings of Gravity[edit]

The entire wikipedia article and scientific community are completely wrong.

The Electromagnetic Radio Frequency Current or The Centrifugal Magnetic Spin Momentum or a particles magnetic spin momentum is gravity.


Whirlpools in water Tornadoes Eye of the tornadoes Hurricanes Eye of the Hurricanes Typhoons Throwing bits of paper in the wake of a speeding train

This is the principle of gravity

There is no attractive force or graviton or any gravitational particle.

Spin Drag is Gravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbhijeetMD (talkcontribs) 15:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
All content in Wikipedia must be properly sourced—see wp:verifiability. And article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about their subject, unless when based on wp:reliable sources, not on our own wp:original research. See wp:Talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"The entire wikipedia article and scientific community are completely wrong" Congratulations on your future Nobel Prize.... -Jordgette [talk] 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Jordgette, see User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric#Gravity. WBGconverse 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Lol. Novel Prize. 🤣 Masum Reza📞 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That user has been blocked indefinitely in the meantime. --mfb (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)