Talk:Gravitational constant

Gravity as a force

Newtonian gravity is a force in the usual sense of forces but, with general relativity, gravity is not a force, right? It instead determines curvature. To what extent should we be careful using the word "force" in this article? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 12:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Units

@Quondum By that argument, that something should be deleted if it might be confusing to someone, the entire Wikipedia should be deleted. What difference do you see between deleting (m/s^2)/(kg/m^2) because it might be confusing to someone vs deleting all of Wikipedia because any of its explanations might be confusing to someone?

Do you see the meaning of G in the "(m/s^2)/(kg/m^2)" arrangement of units?

What format of presentation of this would be acceptable to you? Accompany it with more explanation in a lower section? I tend to think the more concise, the better. Libby3112 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been tagged here, but I have not the faintest idea what this is about. —Quondum 10:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quondum This is reference to your edit and comment:

01:12, 11 May 2025 Quondum "Undid revision 1283480947 by Libby3112 (talk) – one person's meaningful is another's confusing"

Please reread above.

Do you see how the meaning of G is shown in the "(m/s^2)/(kg/m^2)" arrangement of units and obscured by the officially correct reduction of the units to m^3/(kg.s^2)? Libby3112 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that. I have difficulty figuring out how that is clarifying to anyone without a very specific framing in mind. In fact, try as I might, I am unable to figure out what framing that relates to. Most people might think in terms of the force, the two masses, and the separation (as per the previous paragraph), and so I'd expect to have "unjumbled" units of N, kg, kg, and m² shown in combination. Okay, now I see, yes, in the context of the formula for acceleration near a mass you'd have acceleration, a mass, and the square of a distance, but I see nowhere in the article where this is even mentioned. However, the lead is not the place to insert every variation that someone might find useful: this would belong in the article body. —Quondum 02:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quondum I added a section on Meaning, incorporating your feedback. How's this? Libby3112 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It is better placed to say something about this (i.e. not in the lead). I'm not sure how clear it will be to everyone, but let's wait to see how other editors react. —Quondum 00:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I really think the part about G being the factor giving the acceleration resulting at a point in space due to the amount of influence there from a distant mass is a cool insight, that took a fair bit of analysis of the equation.

"m^3/(kg.s^2)" is quite obfuscatory, while "(m/s^2)/(kg/m^2)" really shows the meaning. "N/(kg^2/m^2)" falls out of the equation, but "(m/s^2)/(kg/m^2)" doesn't, right away. I think the latter will really help first-time and other students in understanding G. I had an old friend, actually smarter than I, who was interested in this, but who never figured it out. Libby3112 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the equation to which any presentation relates would give the "meaning" in the way you seem to think of it far more obviously. Without that, just giving the units, I find it i real head-scratcher to figure out "meaning" is being meant, and even with a hypothesis, I am left wondering. Just giving an arrangement of units gives very few clues. Under hypothesis of gravitational acceleration as a function of mass and offset vector r from the centre of a spherically symmetric mass distribution of mass m, i.e. g = −Gmr/|r|³, I might at first expect G to be given in the form (m/s²)⋅(m)²/(kg) rather than what you have given. And I'll reiterate: without first giving the formula in the text, simply giving the arrangement of units is not going to be meaningful to anyone who does not know which formula (context) it is relevant to, it will give no insights. And what does "to indicate the meaning of G as the strength of gravity in the universe" mean? The phrase "the strength of gravity in the universe" is just a string of words with no obvious meaning. If I was to say "the strength of an electric field", I would be referring to the electric field strength (with SI unit V/m), which varies from place to place depending on the distribution of electric charge and current and their rate of change. I would expect something analogous in the gravitational case, but you are clearly referring to a constant, so the phrase is not helpful. —Quondum 13:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Libby3112, agreed, to label a phrase "meaningless" is a little harsh; maybe I should have said "of indeterminate meaning". In an encyclopaedia we need to be clear, though. I am often even more direct (which can feel unforgiving to those who are still finding their feet). I have made several statements here intended to give you guidance so that you can find a way of expressing what you feel should be in the article so that it will be understood to a wider audience than yourself, but you do not seem to be taking the cues or engaging with what I am saying, though you seem to be someone who will be easy to work with once the communication is a bit freer. —Quondum 21:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Font mismatch

The text on the page uses a serif font for mathematical variables and constants; the images use a sans serif font. This could be a bit confusing to novice readers; sometimes rendering differences like that actually mean different math things. I guess the thing to do is re-create the images with a serif font? -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)