Talk:Gravity wave

message: Can someone help provide a definition for Infragravity waves? They are referenced in the article but it is confusing because they are never explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmRadioHed (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infragravity waves 

message: The concept of "the strength of gravity will go up and down as a gravitational wave passes" is, at least for the case of small amplitudes, wrong.
A GW changes the distance between freely falling test particles, but it will not change the strength of gravity as such. Given a GW with sufficient amplitude passing by while you are standing on a bathroom scale, the reading on the scale would not change. Your legs might be shortened (or lengthened, depending on the phase of the wave), though.
gravity waves are waves generated from centifiqual force due to revolving around the sun, 
Grammar and punctuation errors at the beginning of this article make it impossible to understand, even when the punctuation and subject/verb agreement is corrected:
In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium (or at the interface between two mediums, e.g., the atmosphere or ocean) which has the restoring force of gravity or buoyancy.
"...which has the restoring force of gravity or buoyancy": Does that refer to the waves, or to the medium? ...and, in either case, what is meant by "the restoring force"?
The article should also explain why this phenomenon should be called a gravity wave when this term means something different when speaking of General Relativity.
rowley 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitational waves do not change the strength of gravity. 

message: Should the article mention Undular bore Waves? 
This what I've always heard these called, even by NASA.
Edit: forgot to sign!
Chaosratt (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undular Bore Waves 

message: The image of the ocean wave (see right) is lovely, and it matches what we normally think of as a wave; but if I'm understanding the article right, it seems like it's a bit misleading, because a "gravity wave" would be out in the middle of the ocean, oscillating periodically, rather than breaking on shore. (I mean, the breaking wave is still a wave, and not wrong per se, but just a bit misleading.) What do y'all think? Should we change to an image of non-breaking ocean waves?
—RuakhTALK 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a form of a surface gravity wave, whether it is breaking or not, in the ocean or in a lake. Surface gravity wave is in fact the wide class of waves on a gas-liquid interface forced by gravity (and surface tension effects negligible). For me, this picture is fine and not misleading in itself. The caption could be better: "breaking surface gravity wave on an ocean beach" for instance. -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean wave image. 

message: Have I understood the distinction between Gravity wave and Gravitational wave correctly in my assigning of media to the Commons categories :Commons:Category:Gravity waves and :Commons:Category:Gravitational waves? Specifically, Gravity wave talks about hydrodynamic waves and fluids and I am unsure whether that also applies to the particle ripples seen in the rings of Saturn. I am also asking this at Talk:Gravitational wave#Commons categories. 84user (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons categories 

message: I remember reading this was being studied by physicists. They were looking for (trying to prove or disprove) the existence of gravity waves traveling through space from distant events. Is this the same thing?
75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those are described in: gravitational waves. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity Waves in Space

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gravity wave. 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/20110524074238/http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/3195031.html to http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/3195031.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113225116/http://www.wikiwaves.org/index.php/Main_Page to http://www.wikiwaves.org/index.php/Main_Page
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) 19:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There do not seem to be any existing articles on deep water waves? (currently a red-link). Airy wave theory is about linearized deep-water waves (but in general KdV is non-linear). Stokes wave is about periodic waves (but in general, waves are not periodic). Waves and shallow water is a stub.
From what I can tell, the foundational paper that provides a Hamiltonian formalism for deep water waves is this: 
* Zakharov, V. 1968 Stability of periodic waves of finite amplitude on a surface of a deep fluid. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2, 190–198.
The perturbation theory for this is first worked out here:
* Krasitskii, V. P. 1994 On reduced equations in the hamiltonian theory of weakly nonlinear surface waves. J. Fluid Mech. 272, 1 – 20.
A nice review of the work is here:
* Janssen, P. A. E. M. 2009 On some consequences of the canonical transformation in the hamiltonian theory of water waves. J. Fluid Mech. 637, 1–44.
I'm trying to slap together Draft:Resonant interaction and am trying to figure out what WP articles already exist on these topics. Apparently, the primary wave in which waves interact in deep water is a four-wave resonant interaction. There is a wicked-cool experimental paper on this here:
* F. Bonnefoy, F. Haudin, G. Michel, B. Semin, T. Humbert, S. Aumaˆıtre, M. Berhanu, and E. Falcon, (2018) Observation of resonant interactions among surface gravity waves] J. Fluid Mech.
Any help with Draft:Resonant interaction appreciated. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep water waves; Hamiltonain formalism 

message: I added a "citation needed" template to the contradictory claim that:  "Wind-generated gravity waves on the free surface of the Earth's ponds, lakes, seas and oceans have a period of between 0.3 and 30 seconds (corresponding to frequencies between approximately 3 Hz and 33.3 mHz)".  AFAIK, the product of the period and the frequency should be 2π so the numbers in that statement are inconsistent.
Presumably one of the two ranges is correct and the simplest fix would be to delete the other (unsourced) one. Regretfully I have not been able to find a reliable source that is not a circular references to this article so I can not determine which range is correct.
The phrase "wind generated" surface waves does seem to refer to a specific range of frequencies in the sense that frequencies outside that range are unlikely to be generated by wind.
Annette Maon (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks OK to me. See Frequency. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is fine.  The frequency of a phenomenon times its period is 1.  Angular frequency times period is 2π.  —Quondum 13:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced, seemingly contradictory claims (frequency times period should be 2π).