Talk:List of Solar System objects by surface gravity

message: Ugh.  That is one hideous table.  Not as it appears on the page, of course, but on the edit page; the specs do not need to be reproduced for every single cell (and some of the specs are pretty iffy themselves).  I was going to add links for the planets and moons listed, but how the heck do you find them in all that cruft?
On another note, the masses and more especially the radii of the smaller moons are often very questionable, which makes the surface gravity number no more than a wild-assed guess; and below about 200km radius the shapes of the moons are so irregular that there would be no single surface gravity; the gravity would vary drastically depending upon where you were standing. At a guess, none of the figures for objects below #29 on this list are very meaningful.
What is the point of having a column for diameter in metres and one for diameter in km?  I think most people who would look at this list can perform multiplication by 1000 in their heads, maybe.RandomCritic 15:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Doesn't the this article constitute original research?68.48.47.241 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate?

message: After noticing that the table is giving values with ridiculous precision, I gleefully and naively began to embark upon trying to fix up the values, without realising that I was about to knock over a can of worms. I soon found that none of the values seemed to be right for the title of the article -- surface gravity. Why was this? They appear to be giving some sort of acceleration due to gravity instead. Problems with the table as seen presently include:
*Title does not match table
*What radius is used?
*Where do the data come from? 
*Ridiculous precision.
Presumably, the most interesting questions are along the lines of "how much does something weight there", and "how much velocity do you have to give an object on the surface to leave orbit". Both are related to the surface gravity (which takes into account the centrifugal force) not just the bare acceleration due to gravity. Incidentally, the distinction is not always minor - for example Saturn changes its rank in the table depending on which quantity is used. Deuar 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[surface gravity]] vs [[gravitational acceleration]] 

message: The surface gravity here for Enceladus is ten times what it is on its main entry page, making it appear much higher in this list than it should. This is because it's mass is ten times higher on this page than that of the main page (10^21 instead of 10^20).
:Well caught! It's now fixed, but I wonder how many more bugs like that remain. Deuar 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enceladus appears off 

message: Stars and gas giants don't have surfaces in the usual sense, so some explanation ought be given exactly what "surface gravity" means wrt them. I'm guessing the radii used are those corresponding to an atmospheric pressure of 1 bar for the gas giants and some sort of average photospheric radius for the Sun, which would be reasonable enough, but the article should explain. Orcoteuthis (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objects without surfaces