147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + +
no edit summary
I changed the formula to the correct typography. Now, why ''should'' gravity be here. Surely a link to a gravity article is necessary and sufficient? I don't want to edit in case someone has a reason for it to be like this. Fantomas 07:51, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I changed the formula to the correct typography. Now, why ''should'' gravity be here. Surely a link to a gravity article is necessary and sufficient? I don't want to edit in case someone has a reason for it to be like this. Fantomas 07:51, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
==Proposed Major Rewrite==
The current article lacks a coherent direction and reads like a trivia list along the lines of "here's some stuff that has something to do with physics." It erroneously states that the field began with Galileo. Newton's law of gravitation is a very specific application and, IMO, should not be stated within the first few paragraphs of an article on a vast subject. Furthermore, an entire paragraph is devoted to mostly to [[calculus]] and not to physics. I've started working on an outline of a compete rewrite [[User:Bayes/Physics_draft|here]]. If there are no objections, I'd like to replace the current version with that one in the very near future.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)