Talk:Geopotential

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added a figure! Stamcose (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about article "Geopotential"

Section "Definitions" is OK! Obviously written from the point of view of a meterology stressing the "centrifugal force" and the distinction between between gravity/gravitation. Simple definitions of simple concepts like "geoid" etc are given. Fine!

Section "Mathematical formula" is a bit pointless and not good. This "z" variable is for example rather pointless! If kept at all it should be replaced with the text of section "Newton's law" of article "Geopotential model"

Comments about article "Geopotential model"

This article is very important because it documents the advanced mathematical concepts on which the gravitational models are based THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND IN THE LITERATURE. The orbit propagation software used by space agencies all over the world are based on these concepts but the theory is "hidden in the software" and the generation that originally developed the concept is not around anymore. New improved coefficients are fitted to observed spacecraft orbits but this does not require the full detailed understanding of the internal mathematical algorithms the orbit propagation software is based on.

Conlusion: A justification for having two distinkt articles could be that the first is a very elementary one for the layman and the second an important reference for the expert

Stamcose (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]