This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Energy Navbar has been removed because it focuses upon industrial energy subjects. Until gravitational energy is harnessed, it is not appropriate to add it to this Navbar. If it is not on the Navbar, then the Navbar does not belong in the article. – Paine ( Climax!) 05:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The english is sloppy in this section I do not believe that the physics in this section is correct either. I am going to come back to look at this page later to sort it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.129.66 ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The introduction has to be completely rewritten, removing the confusing example of Quasars which is a very specific example which not should be explained in detail in the introduction of an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahandr ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Laurdecl: I believe your edit here permits us to remove {{Expert needed|Physics|reason=clarification of main concepts needed|date=January 2017}}. Do you agree?-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
u
I believe this article is to theoretic, specially i believe the section on general relativity is misplaced. As i understand general relativity, it is only applicable at wery high speed, (near the speed of light) that is not the kind of speed I would expect in a practical contruction.
I would also suggest the first part include a practical approuch, so you can calculate the power generatet by a falling body. As I believe, it is the entire purpose of the matter.
This is my first post on wiki, so I hope I do things right. (I belive I do not have the right to edit the article.)
Stabiw ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The derivation of potential energy uses the concept of an outside force. This is in conflict with the derivations in the article on potential energy and the article on work. These other articles define the potential energy by
where the work is done by the conservative force for which the potential energy is defined. This article calculates the gravitational potential energy by considering an outside force that counteracts the force of gravity and calculates the work done by this outside force. While this is correct, it requires understanding that if then so so that instead of .
This can cause confusion. It would be simpler to align the derivation with the other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwpjp ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
In the lead section, this article claims that near Earth's surface in a uniform gravitational field, gravitational potential energy can be written . This equation should be backed up in the article with a derivation. The basic steps of the derivation posted by DrPippy are supported here and here, with some minor algebraic differences. Perhaps the derivation could be changed to more accurately reflect the source material, but the ideas are correct. Humsorgan ( talk) 00:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Why does the gravitational energy increase when the points are further apart, when you're dividing with the radius? Wikifan153 ( talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Energy Navbar has been removed because it focuses upon industrial energy subjects. Until gravitational energy is harnessed, it is not appropriate to add it to this Navbar. If it is not on the Navbar, then the Navbar does not belong in the article. – Paine ( Climax!) 05:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The english is sloppy in this section I do not believe that the physics in this section is correct either. I am going to come back to look at this page later to sort it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.129.66 ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The introduction has to be completely rewritten, removing the confusing example of Quasars which is a very specific example which not should be explained in detail in the introduction of an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahandr ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Laurdecl: I believe your edit here permits us to remove {{Expert needed|Physics|reason=clarification of main concepts needed|date=January 2017}}. Do you agree?-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
u
I believe this article is to theoretic, specially i believe the section on general relativity is misplaced. As i understand general relativity, it is only applicable at wery high speed, (near the speed of light) that is not the kind of speed I would expect in a practical contruction.
I would also suggest the first part include a practical approuch, so you can calculate the power generatet by a falling body. As I believe, it is the entire purpose of the matter.
This is my first post on wiki, so I hope I do things right. (I belive I do not have the right to edit the article.)
Stabiw ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The derivation of potential energy uses the concept of an outside force. This is in conflict with the derivations in the article on potential energy and the article on work. These other articles define the potential energy by
where the work is done by the conservative force for which the potential energy is defined. This article calculates the gravitational potential energy by considering an outside force that counteracts the force of gravity and calculates the work done by this outside force. While this is correct, it requires understanding that if then so so that instead of .
This can cause confusion. It would be simpler to align the derivation with the other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwpjp ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
In the lead section, this article claims that near Earth's surface in a uniform gravitational field, gravitational potential energy can be written . This equation should be backed up in the article with a derivation. The basic steps of the derivation posted by DrPippy are supported here and here, with some minor algebraic differences. Perhaps the derivation could be changed to more accurately reflect the source material, but the ideas are correct. Humsorgan ( talk) 00:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Why does the gravitational energy increase when the points are further apart, when you're dividing with the radius? Wikifan153 ( talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)