Talk:Gravitational acceleration

message: Wow it's nice to come back to an article you created a long time ago and see that others have added to it :) My IP address was 70.149.21.254. September 30, 2006 --Fastman99
:Only problem is, the article it should be merged with (now at Acceleration due to gravity) was created a long, long time before yours was (3½ years earlier than your 11 month old article), has much more information, and it has about a zillion links compared to a handful here.  Gene Nygaard 13:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: For an acceleration a body has to be in motion (speed/velocity) if not then technically its acceleration is zero 
See the following link
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/1DKin/U1L5b.html
At starting point 
Initial velocity = 0, t=0 why g is not =0
Similarly when a body of mass reach the surface of earth then its motion stop and cannot accelerate further. Then how come we calculate the weight =
-------
In acceleration problems acceleration is always given to be uniform. However, for a falling particle from a remote point this is not so. Gravitational acceleration ( g ) depends on the  distance ( r ), the distance depends on the velocity which in turn depends on acceleration. For example what is the falling time of a small mass in free fall ( Vin = 0 ) from 150 000 000 km (earth orbit radius) to Sun ? ( G • M for Sun is approximatelly 1.327• 1020 in SI units) Certainly \mathbf{r}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot g \cdot t^2
is not applicable in this case.(non uniform acceleration) This problem can be solved by numerical methods . But I'd like to know if there is an analytic solution for such distance dependent acceleration case (maybe with the help of NL differential equations) ? 
Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, Norbeck kindly informed me that I can find the answer to my question on page Free fall. As far I can see on the History page, it was added just a month ago (17th of Dec.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Its hard to distinguish between small and big masses in the article. 
Shouldn't the sentence be "All bodies accelerate at same rate which can generate similar/ same relative acceleration towards the center of gravitating mass."
Similarly its a little confusing; should the same relative acceleration be considered in the equation of w =mg and universal law of gravitation between celestial bodies- big masses.
Furthermore, Einstein's gravity prevail over Newtonian but would it possible for two identical spherical masses to attract each other such that the space distorted by them don't coincide or just like two externally tangent circle- no chance for them to move in trajectories determined by the geometry of their spacetimes. 68.147.41.231 (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small and big masses 

message: "...The relative acceleration of two objects in the reference frame of either object or the center of mass is: : \mathbf{\hat{g}} = -{G( M+m ) \over r^2}\mathbf{\hat{r}}..."
It is big mistake. Acceleration is independent of  the inertial reference frame. In non inertial r. f. we have trouble with the interaction definition. In this article I first time, in my long life, I have seen " relative acceleration" term. I must repeat, the forces and the accelerations are independent of the inertial reference frame. It formula is truth only for two objects which are together as one body. The source is necessary in this case. Regards ZIpek83.30.76.49 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMO it is big mistake 

message: Although higher derivatives of the position are not discussed by the Newton while formulating  “F = GMm/d^2” (where reduction in “d” is lopsided for the falling of small objects on earth ) but verily the subtle nuances of such spawning can easily be perceived through arcane reasoning if imagined two identical planets of mammoth masses “M” separated by conspicuous on-centre distance “d”. Since both masses "M" are under the influence of gravity "F" therefore reduction in “d” would be equal but abrupt on either side of point “c” lucidly  if “c” is the mid point of “d" as both F = GM^2/d^2 and "g =GM/d^2" are time varying. 
The simultaneous abruptness of motion starts equally on either side of "c" right at the inception of "g" of each M which sent the aforementioned masses “M” swiftly into different types of motion such as gravitational jerk, jounce, crackle, pop, lock, drop etc, wherefore, should the propinquity of higher derivatives of position as such be included in the topic if yes then what would be their falling equations and order of the derivatives? 74.200.19.65 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher derivatives of position w.r.t time and their falling equations 

message: A part of the article states "At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.78 and 9.82 m/s2 depending on altitude,". Should this not be "depending of latitude instead ? I'm quite sure of that g differs with latitude somehow. And depending on altitude should really be "from almost zero up to 9.82 m/s2, depending of altitude". With "altitude" I do mean also outside the atmosphere. Astronauts and Kosmonauts orbiting Earth becomes "weightless", hence gravity must be very close to zero (?) Boeing720 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altitude or Latitude ? 

message: wide overlap, interrelated definitions fgnievinski (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge of Gravitational acceleration as I think that there is sufficient scope within this important topic for articles covering the topic from different points of view: one with a focus on fields (a challenging read for most readers ...), and another on the effects of acceleration (more accessible ...). Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Gravitational acceleration]] into [[Gravity field]] 

message: ? Aidepikiw1186 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The technology to travel 1g?