This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escape velocity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There have been several mentions on this talk page that the term "escape velocity" is a misnomer, as it's actually a speed and not a velocity. The reason given previously for keeping the title of the article as "Escape Velocity" is that "escape velocity" is the more commonly used term in most circles, and WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should use the most recognizable title. However I contend that this is an improper usage of the WP:COMMONNAME policy, as it also says:
"Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. [...] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
"Escape velocity" is outright wrong, and as such I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME is in any way telling us that we have to continue to use an incorrect title. While "escape speed" may not be quite as common as "escape velocity", it is still an often-used term in many resources, and it's quite easy for the average person to understand what is meant. I highly doubt that anyone would be confused by an article titled "Escape Speed", even if that person were accustomed to the concept being called "escape velocity". I nominate that the title of the page and all references in it to "escape velocity" be changed to "escape speed", and a sentence added in the introduction that mentions the confusion in other sources. KingSupernova ( talk) 06:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Black holes are objects from General Relativity, and the fact that their escape velocity at the event horizon is c is merely a coincidence. Light can't escape from it, but it's not because of the escape velocity. See the History section of [Black holes]: "Modern relativity factually dispels Michell's (this) notion of a light ray shooting directly from the surface of a supermassive star, being slowed down by the star's gravity, stopping, and then free-falling back to the star's surface."
I thought about plainly deleting that, but we might want to delete the link to black holes altogether. Opinions? LucasFehlau ( talk) 11:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to get some references in this section so that readers interested in the derivation of this expression, and how the assumptions play into this result, have some leads.
207.38.134.235 ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
" Luna 1, launched in 1959, was the first man-made object to attain escape velocity from Earth (see below table)." Sputnik was 2 years earlier, why is this not listed? The source number 5 seems to not make such a claim as the image caption does. HolmKønøman ( talk) 22:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone ever been to the economic order quantity Wikipedia article and noticed how that formula is remarkably similar to the Escape Velocity formula? Would it be justified to add that observation into the article or not?
Theboombody ( talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In the lede:
For example, the escape speed from Earth's surface is about 11.186 km/s (40,270 km/h; 25,020 mph; 36,700 ft/s) and the surface gravity is 9.8 m/s (35 km/h; 22 mph; 32 ft/s).
The units of gravity are those of acceleration (m.s-2), but those given in this sentence are velocity. Or am I missing something?
Wocky (
talk)
23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Q:How much velocity is needed to go out the range of gravitational field and who we named it? 103.200.197.234 ( talk) 10:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
User KingSupernova ( talk · contribs) moved the article from Escape velocity to Escape speed with an edit summary "Perform requested move, see talk page: Moving to a more accurate title". As far as I can see, their own request dates from November 2021, and there was no consensus for it. Moreover, the literature seems to favour the original name even more than two years ago:
Scholar | Books | Web | |
---|---|---|---|
"escape velocity" | 56,200 | 196,000 | 4,720,000 |
"escape speed" | 9,810 | 16,200 | 263,000 |
I strongly propose to move it back to the original consensus version. - DVdm ( talk) 11:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: I have restored the original common name per WP:RMUM and WP:COMMONNAME ( [1]) and the version before the undiscussed change ( [2]). Thanks all for your input. - DVdm ( talk) 23:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close due to unanimous opposition and a rather inaccurate nomination statement. ( non-admin closure) SnowFire ( talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Escape velocity → Escape speed – The previous discussion on this subject ended with a 3:1 consensus in favor of moving. The only dissenter was user DVdm, who ignored the argument in favor of the move and voted against it without providing justification. I performed the move, and DVdm reverted the move, again without providing any reasoning for this behavior. The page move is clearly correct as per WP:COMMONNAME's stated policy of avoiding inaccurate article titles in cases where there exists a literature consensus that the most frequently used name is inaccurate. I believe user DMdm has acted inappropriately by reverting a page move despite clear support for the move in Wikipedia policy *and* a consensus in favor of the move among editors. Additionally, DVdm's consistent refusal to provide a justification for their opposition to the page move is a violation of Wikipedia's norms around reaching consensus through good faith discussion. I propose that the move to Escape speed is performed as per the reasons presented in Talk:Escape_speed#Article_title:_"Escape_Velocity"_vs._"Escape_Speed", and if necessary moderator action is taken to prevent further vandalism from user DVdm. KingSupernova ( talk) 06:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
a significant movement in the relevant physical science literature to change the common term, "velocity" is fine. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article might be improved by an early link to Parabolic trajectory, which covers the celestial mechanics fairly well. Is it appropriate to do that in the lede section? ( sdsds - talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently the article uses speed (and velocity) without mention of a particular frame of reference. There's the implicit assumption the primary body is fixed and all the motion pertains to the secondary body (with mass m << M). The article would be improved either by making that explicit, or by discussing the relative velocity of the two bodies. The second alternative has much less practical application, and is well covered in the Two-body problem article. ( — 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Escape velocity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There have been several mentions on this talk page that the term "escape velocity" is a misnomer, as it's actually a speed and not a velocity. The reason given previously for keeping the title of the article as "Escape Velocity" is that "escape velocity" is the more commonly used term in most circles, and WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should use the most recognizable title. However I contend that this is an improper usage of the WP:COMMONNAME policy, as it also says:
"Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. [...] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
"Escape velocity" is outright wrong, and as such I don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME is in any way telling us that we have to continue to use an incorrect title. While "escape speed" may not be quite as common as "escape velocity", it is still an often-used term in many resources, and it's quite easy for the average person to understand what is meant. I highly doubt that anyone would be confused by an article titled "Escape Speed", even if that person were accustomed to the concept being called "escape velocity". I nominate that the title of the page and all references in it to "escape velocity" be changed to "escape speed", and a sentence added in the introduction that mentions the confusion in other sources. KingSupernova ( talk) 06:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Black holes are objects from General Relativity, and the fact that their escape velocity at the event horizon is c is merely a coincidence. Light can't escape from it, but it's not because of the escape velocity. See the History section of [Black holes]: "Modern relativity factually dispels Michell's (this) notion of a light ray shooting directly from the surface of a supermassive star, being slowed down by the star's gravity, stopping, and then free-falling back to the star's surface."
I thought about plainly deleting that, but we might want to delete the link to black holes altogether. Opinions? LucasFehlau ( talk) 11:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice to get some references in this section so that readers interested in the derivation of this expression, and how the assumptions play into this result, have some leads.
207.38.134.235 ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
" Luna 1, launched in 1959, was the first man-made object to attain escape velocity from Earth (see below table)." Sputnik was 2 years earlier, why is this not listed? The source number 5 seems to not make such a claim as the image caption does. HolmKønøman ( talk) 22:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone ever been to the economic order quantity Wikipedia article and noticed how that formula is remarkably similar to the Escape Velocity formula? Would it be justified to add that observation into the article or not?
Theboombody ( talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In the lede:
For example, the escape speed from Earth's surface is about 11.186 km/s (40,270 km/h; 25,020 mph; 36,700 ft/s) and the surface gravity is 9.8 m/s (35 km/h; 22 mph; 32 ft/s).
The units of gravity are those of acceleration (m.s-2), but those given in this sentence are velocity. Or am I missing something?
Wocky (
talk)
23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Q:How much velocity is needed to go out the range of gravitational field and who we named it? 103.200.197.234 ( talk) 10:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
User KingSupernova ( talk · contribs) moved the article from Escape velocity to Escape speed with an edit summary "Perform requested move, see talk page: Moving to a more accurate title". As far as I can see, their own request dates from November 2021, and there was no consensus for it. Moreover, the literature seems to favour the original name even more than two years ago:
Scholar | Books | Web | |
---|---|---|---|
"escape velocity" | 56,200 | 196,000 | 4,720,000 |
"escape speed" | 9,810 | 16,200 | 263,000 |
I strongly propose to move it back to the original consensus version. - DVdm ( talk) 11:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: I have restored the original common name per WP:RMUM and WP:COMMONNAME ( [1]) and the version before the undiscussed change ( [2]). Thanks all for your input. - DVdm ( talk) 23:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close due to unanimous opposition and a rather inaccurate nomination statement. ( non-admin closure) SnowFire ( talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Escape velocity → Escape speed – The previous discussion on this subject ended with a 3:1 consensus in favor of moving. The only dissenter was user DVdm, who ignored the argument in favor of the move and voted against it without providing justification. I performed the move, and DVdm reverted the move, again without providing any reasoning for this behavior. The page move is clearly correct as per WP:COMMONNAME's stated policy of avoiding inaccurate article titles in cases where there exists a literature consensus that the most frequently used name is inaccurate. I believe user DMdm has acted inappropriately by reverting a page move despite clear support for the move in Wikipedia policy *and* a consensus in favor of the move among editors. Additionally, DVdm's consistent refusal to provide a justification for their opposition to the page move is a violation of Wikipedia's norms around reaching consensus through good faith discussion. I propose that the move to Escape speed is performed as per the reasons presented in Talk:Escape_speed#Article_title:_"Escape_Velocity"_vs._"Escape_Speed", and if necessary moderator action is taken to prevent further vandalism from user DVdm. KingSupernova ( talk) 06:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
a significant movement in the relevant physical science literature to change the common term, "velocity" is fine. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article might be improved by an early link to Parabolic trajectory, which covers the celestial mechanics fairly well. Is it appropriate to do that in the lede section? ( sdsds - talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently the article uses speed (and velocity) without mention of a particular frame of reference. There's the implicit assumption the primary body is fixed and all the motion pertains to the secondary body (with mass m << M). The article would be improved either by making that explicit, or by discussing the relative velocity of the two bodies. The second alternative has much less practical application, and is well covered in the Two-body problem article. ( — 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 10:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)