Talk:Flattening

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

Physics Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"centrifugal force" should be replaced by "centripetal force". centrifugal force does not exist.

[email protected]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.155.167 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does exist if you are in a rotating reference frame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.0.125 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! See http://xkcd.com/123/ :-) Seriously though, centrifugal force is indeed a 'fictitious force' in that it derives from a coordinate transform, but in a rotating reference frame it's a very useful concept. See the WP article on centrifugal force, in fact... Cooperised (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some discussion about the perturbation effects of planetary oblateness on natural satellites would be a good addition. My understanding is that

I have tidied up this page, simplifying some material, adding figures and removing all mention of angular eccentricity. (I have recently asked several professionals in the field about the angular eccentricity. All are agreed that this parameter is not used in the modern literature. The inclusion of this parameter as a central feature of so many wiki articles is a distortion of this subject area and as such it is contrary to wiki guidelines. See also comments here and here.  Peter Mercator (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The begining of this article states that ellipticity and oblateness are other terms used for flattening. I believe this suggest they are the same thing, which is wrong according to this site Felipebm (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flattening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118224152/http://mercator.myzen.co.uk/mercator.pdf to http://mercator.myzen.co.uk/mercator.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic for the pagename Flattening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was suggested to be changed to a different topic, see the discussion at talk:mode-k flattening -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk:mode-k flattening

65.92.244.151 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]