None of the terms in this equation are dimensioned. The expression is only accurate for h in metres as indicated. The altitude term is 10 times larger than it should be as currently written. Deriving the altitude term from g=GM/d2 yields a sensitivity of about 30mgal per 100 metre and the expression is only correct with my edit. See http://www.chsfootball.net/earth_g_2.doc as an example. Millsng (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I'll admit straight out that it's been a while since I've done any physics. However, all the equations in the section have the units appended to the right-hand side, and in all cases, the units are distributed to all terms of the RHS. I feel it would be less confusing with the brackets present, or no units in all the equations. I'm also confused by your argument that, with the brackets, the equation is 10 times larger--distributing the units to both terms does not in any way change the magnitude of the result. --Bagatelle 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see what you think of this draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MillsngSandbox#Mathematical_models Millsng (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion on it, but as I said above, I am not a physicist, and I don't have the time to read enough of the theory to make an authoritative statement about the quality of the science. My original rationale for the reversion was that all the equations in the section have the units distributed to all terms on the RHS. From a consistency perspective, we should either always have the units distributed on the RHS, or not. However, now that I look at it more carefully, I do see that there would be an extra factor of ge as it is now, because the left bracket was placed after ge rather than before it. I would have no complaints if you opened bracket at the beginning of the RHS, or if you removed all the unit denominations in the equations in the article for consistency. Just make sure to put in an edit summary to that effect so someone else doesn't get confused like me. Regards, Bagatelle 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please see what you think of this draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MillsngSandbox#Mathematical_models Millsng (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
/Sandbox