Talk:Gravity anomaly

Ease of understanding

This article doesn't really explain the nature or cause of gravity anomalies to the layperson. Is there any chance of a simplified paragraph or two to rectify this?jamie (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. Frunobulax (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't clarify why it is that someone would want to "reduce" the observed values, or discuss applications in which users are interested in the actual variation of the force of gravity over the surface of the planet. Now that many people are carrying around accelerometers in their pockets and can directly measure that force, they'll be interested in knowing if their cell phone can actually detect the difference between the force in e.g. a mountain and a valley. --NealMcB (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to all above. It could use a translation into English. I came here looking for information about the gravity anomalies in the Oceans which causes the sea level to bulge and dip. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked at this one before, I've added it to WP Geology, which should attract more eyes. It could certainly do with some help - I'll see if I can make it a bit easier to understand. Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The information the article does contain is mostly obvious to someone with a modest understanding of gravity while simultaneously being stated in such a convoluted way that it takes forever to work out the meaning. That first sentence in correction #3 is particularly bad even from a simple grammar perspective. It feels like bad communication to halfway describe a bit of calculus the way #3 does too. Either someone is going to know some math and correct vocabulary can be used or they aren't and "infinite slabs of thickness t (should probably be dt)" is going to be just gibberish.

I was preparing a list of changes to make when I stumbled across the WP article "Gravity of Earth." It covers much of the same information as this article but is more clearly written, although it does leave out a few of the technical terms used in this article (free-air, bouguer). It would take a lot of burden off this article to just link to that one. I'm not sure what the right WP way to handle that is.

Some layperson causes/uses for the anomalies are described in the last paragraph of the first section. Maybe that should be broken out so its less likely to get skimmed over by someone who is overwhelmed by the first part (not entirely their fault, it's unnecessarily complicated).Erleichdatpb (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do I go if I have theories about the anomaly. I have been looking for awhile for an answer to "what is gravity" and I think I have an answer unless someone can point me in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.184.74 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone just explain to me: 1) How these anomalies affect me in my everyday life, directly and indirectly 2) What causes them I think if the article answers that, it will be much more useful. Really, ask an expert on the subject how he'd explain it to his kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.156.139 (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

I have never heard of a milligal, Oops, I should have asked Wikipedia! Wikipedia does indeed have a definition of the gal. The article ought to reference it at the first mention of milligal.
DaveyHume (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I had to look it up too... Given the gal is a deprecated unit, I wonder if it should be changed. Lovingboth (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)