some weeks ago I saw a statement in a post saying that gravity and gravitation are not the same thing.
Unfortunately I can´t remember who was posting this, and when I use the BAUT search function looking for gravity or gravitation I end up with dozens of pages.
My dictionary doesn´t seem to know the difference between gravity and gravitation.

Any clarification available? Thanks

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Bold Mine:

Thanks for the link which I should have found myself. But honestly, after reading it 10 times I´m still confused.
Maybe, I´m too tired from this morning´s tennis competition. I´ll read it tomorrow again

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

This topic: Gravity and Gravitation?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

No, it wasn´t this topic. But thanks for the link. It is very helpful to get a better understanding of gravity/gravitation

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

Here is the post you are referring to, where Tim Thompson, covered this.

gravity and orbital dynamics

And here is the thread...

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1296777

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Let me take another shot at it...

Gravitation is the attraction between two objects that have mass.

Gravity is more Newtonian in that it is treated as a force.

The distinction is almost irrelevant today with todays modern understanding of gravity, because in your mind, you know that a 1lb weight is pulling on the Earth just as well.

But in Newtons time, Gravity is what pulled you down.
Gravitation is what pulls two objects toward eachother.

Simply, gravity is the effect of gravitation.

In Newton's time (at least, after the time he devised Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation), gravity is what pulls two objects toward each other.

IMHO, the distinction between the two is much ado over nothing, some hyper-pedantic exercise.


-Richard

I think you've got it backward. Gravitation is the effect. Gravity is the Newtonian theoretical "force" that causes the effect.

I put force in parenthesis because einstienian gravity is not a force but a shape.

In M theory gravity is a dynamic of an as yet incompletely described field.

Oh yes, exactly! Thanks

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

Life is much easier now for me

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

Sure, No Problem.

It helps when you can remember who said/posted it...you just click on their name and go to either all posts or threads started.

But that can be fraught with frustration also...I have been looking for something I read that KenG posted in some thread, and Cannot find it......GRRR...lol

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I see a Tim Thompson in your future...if you read his post, this is one of his pet peeves...

IMHO, I think you are correct, BUT probably NOT for the reasons you may think...;>)

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Holy moly, Tim does not even mention a difference between gravity and gravitation! The difference he points out is between "gravity wave" and "gravitational wave" (although, gravity waves are not limited to atmospheres). Different animals entirely, kinda like speckled hawk owls and spotted eagle owls but speckled and spotted don't mean much different. In fact, at one point in Tim's post, he says "a wave of gravity (or gravitation)".

Definitely a case where going back to primary sources was a big help

Ah, I see. Well, I knew that was the post that dhd40 was referring to, But, I guess I should have re-read Tim's Post before I posted to Publius...OOOPS...LOL

Sorry Richard.......

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Well, we can still chew on the wiki article that Neverfly dug up! It unambiguously states there is a distinction between gravity and gravitation, but I'm a little unclear on that myself even after reading it

I kinda think it's all in the mind.
I understand the distinction- I just don't see how it has any practical relevance.

Hmm... Let's consult a dictionary:

gravitation: "a force manifested by acceleration..."

gravity: "a sobriety of bearing"

No, that can't be right...

gravity: "the gravitational attraction of [masses, etc.]'

Thus, it's clear - gravitation is the force, and gravity is the effect.

But, of course, it goes on to totally muddy the waters with "(2): a fundamental physical force..."



More foolery with "gravitational force" and "the force of gravity."



And to think that gravity (gravitation, whatever) doesn't meet the classical definition of force at all.

Which dictionary was that!?

Sure. But what if Mr. Alzh... starts creeping in?
(solution: post on Q&A )

__________________
If everyone had even a basic grasp of scientific principles, this planet would be a better place (Phil Plait)

Die Lücke, die wir hinterlassen, ersetzt uns vollkommen [The gap we will leave behind will take our place entirely] (Carl Heinz Schroth)

1 + e^i*pi = 0

That's just a bad idea. Dictionaries never give good scientific definitions.

Sorry. My regular stand-by: Merriam-Webster.

Well, at least they try!