Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies to Newton's law of gravitation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. –  Rob e  rt  00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversies to Newton's law of gravitation
This is not controvertial, but just a misapplication. The formula only works for point masses. It happens that at least as long as you are outside a regular ball mass then the ball's gravity is the same as if all it's mass had been at a point in the center of the ball. So since one of the objects is not outside of the other the formula can not be applied in this case. Thue | talk 18:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, smerging all (if any) relevant material into Gravity per Thue. Blackcap (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's original research which oversimplifies the situation to come up with the apparent paradox. ESkog | Talk 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Misapplication of Newton's Law of Gravitation. ManoaChild 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Inability to calculate gravitational force between objects having virtual center of masses ManoaChild 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics. Sliggy 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic - the editor purports to start a discussion rather than provide information --Bachrach44 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Newton's law isn't "controversial," it was superceded by Einstein's work nearly a century ago.  It's like criticism of Zeus worshippers.  Essay. Jtmichcock 02:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Daaaaaamn you Zeus!!!! (delete)  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Agree with nom. regarding point mass vs. mass of a volume. Somebody needs a course in calculus. &mdash; RJH 17:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic. Stifle 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the above. The article is sheer nonsense. B.Wind 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.