Talk:Gravity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attribution[change source]

Parts of this article were taken from English wikipedia articles en:Gravitation, en:Gravity and en:Relativity, then edited. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be rewritten[change source]

This page needs to be rewritten to remove all the we's in this article because otherwise, it is not unbiased and neutral. I can't do it right now, but this is just to let others know about it. Razorflame 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I took out a few of the we's. It's pretty good in that respect now. Nerfer (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

complexity[change source]

There was a template at top saying this was too complex for some to understand. I did some major modifications and tried to keep it fairly simple, so I took out the template calling for simplification. I realize this is a judgement call on my part and may be premature. This is definitely not BE-1500, and I don't think it ever will be, but I removed some unnecessary math computing the mass of the moon and a few other minor things. Newton's equations are still there, and not easy to understand. I'm not sure what can be done about that. Nerfer (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


What's going on[change source]

This page is under development. We had two pages, Gravity and Gravitation, with almost the same content. Although there is some difference in the way these words are used, it is going to be simpler for everyone to have the content in one place. Don't stick your oar in just yet; wait for a day or so until the text settles down. Thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Language issues[change source]

We have great problems making fundamental physics intelligible to our special audiences. For that reason we have used here a rather more informal manner of writing than we usually do. We need to remember that guidelines are the servants of communication, not the masters. When the same ideas are written in the passive tense, and in the impersonal voice, then the passage is more difficult to read and understand. This is not a personal opinion; there is a good deal of research into literacy and reading to support it. I happen to have on the desk a copy of Einstein and Infeld's The evolution of physics. In the course of two pages I see they use the personal tone often: "we" five times, "our" twice, and rhetorical devices such as the use of questions. This is because they, like us, are trying to do a difficult task: to explain extremely complex ideas in simple language. Guidelines designed for main English wiki often need to be more flexible on Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

adding image[change source]

Artist concept of Gravity Probe B orbiting the Earth to measure space-time, a four-dimensional description of the universe including height, width, length, and time.
Smlombardi (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I finally got it right ;-)Smlombardi (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)