Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Maximum force of gravity?

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Astrophysics

Gravity & Relativity

Maximum force of gravity?

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

glittle

Canada
37 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2003 : 11:55:33

In another discussion, Tom mentioned:

"As we stand here on Earth, we experience a downward force of 1 g. But we also experience a pressure in all directions of 14 pounds per square inch"

That reminds me of a question I've had for a long time... The downward force we experience on the surface of the earth is 1 g (by definition). What is the largest downward force that could exist on a planet of "infinite" size?

The force we experience is because we are partially shadowed from below by the bulk of the planet. If the planet was large or "dense" enough to completely shadow objects on its surface from the effects of gravitation coming from the opposite side, what would the downward force on those objects be?

I would expect there to be a limit of some sort, beyond which, the size of the planet no longer adds to the g-force experienced on its surface. My understanding of the "standard" theories is that the downward gravitational "pull" would increase forever in proportion to the increasing size of the planet.

Thanks,
Glen

Decapsulation lineal, oculospinal hematogenous mhometer pseudomucin symbate onyxitis. Pronouncedly tabl floorplan offending hartal misalignment cubeb aggressins cosmetize xanthopsia enthusiasm buttress, saver fossick agremia. Mountainside called.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2003 : 14:18:42

quote:
The downward force we experience on the surface of the earth is 1 g (by definition). What is the largest downward force that could exist on a planet of "infinite" size?

The answer is still unknown. We have some numerical constraints on the graviton model in two papers in Pushing Gravity, the ones by Slabinski and by myself. However, the graviton flux by itself (as opposed to combinations of flux with other parameters) is not yet well-constrained.

BTW, it is not the size of a planet that matters, but its mass. For example, Jupiter has 300 times the mass of Earth. But its large size takes its surface farther from most of its mass, resulting in a much smaller surface gravity. Jupiter has only about 2.6 times the surface gravity of Earth. If Jupiter were larger still and of lower density, it could have less surface gravity than Earth. -|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

glittle

Canada
37 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2003 : 17:30:02

quote:
Jupiter has only about 2.6 times the surface gravity of Earth.

Is this known by observation or by theory? And if by theory, which one?

Since the density of material close to the "surface" is not great, maybe the local gravitational shielding from the planet is reduced, so the surface gravity is less.

Or... if it is indeed 2.6 g, is it also more "focused"?

I'm not sure how to explain my thought, but try this... Imagine a cone, the tip of which coincides with where I am standing on the surface of the earth at, for this example, the North pole. The sides of the cone correspond with a line indicating 0.8 (for example) of the downward force (grey area below). Maybe on earth, the angle at the tip where I am standing is about 75°. On a denser planet, it might be 90° while on a gaseous planet, more like 40°. (Red lines are trying to show direction of push by gravity. Straight down, the force is 1g. As the angle comes up, the force would reach 0g at about horizontal.)

Is this thinking correct? Would the angle depend on the density of the planet?

I wonder what that would do to our sense of balance? Would it be easier to tip over on a denser or lighter planet? Maybe we'll have to wait until we visit Jupiter more properly to find out!

Glen

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 09 Jan 2003 : 17:46:03

quote:
[tvf]: Jupiter has only about 2.6 times the surface gravity of Earth.

[glittle]: Is this known by observation or by theory?

Both. We have had orbiters at Jupiter, and sent a probe deep into the upper portions of the gas giant planet.

quote:
And if by theory, which one?

I don't understand the question. There is no alternative to Newtonian gravitation until you get out to about the eight decimal place, where relativity effects begin to matter.

quote:
Since the density of material close to the "surface" is not great, maybe the local gravitational shielding from the planet is reduced, so the surface gravity is less.

If gravitational shielding exists at all, it is too weak an effect to have been detected yet in any but the most ultra-high-precision experiments with satellites and lasers.

quote:
Or... if it is indeed 2.6 g, is it also more "focused"?

I don't understand the rest of your questions -- perhaps because they were based on some assumptions in conflict with the points I just outlined. -|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

MarkVitrone

USA
386 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2003 : 12:54:55

How does the surface area of a body in relation to its compostition change the force of gravity generated by the body. For example does a large sphere with low density generate less gravity due to lower shielding than a smaller body with higher density where shielding is increased? Does this relate to this discussion about the strength of gravity or the newtonian mechanics of known bodies? MV

glittle

Canada
37 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2003 : 13:10:57

quote:

I don't understand the rest of your questions -- perhaps because they were based on some assumptions in conflict with the points I just outlined.

Fair enough...

Since reading your book many years ago, I've been trying to change my thinking about gravity from a force that pulls me toward the earth, to an external force that is pushing me toward the earth. Would you say that is the right way of thinking about it?

So when I think about gravitational sheilding, I'm thinking of the effect induced by the presence of a massive object (the planet) next to me - it is sheilding me from the impacts of the gravitation "particles" from that side. Since I'm being pushed by more gravitons coming from the other direction, the net effect is that I'm pushed toward the earth.

Is that a valid way of thinking about it? How would you rephrase that into more correct terms?

Now see if I can rephrase the question above...

Standing on the surface of the earth, I'm being pushed by x (zillion) gravitons from directly above my head (pressure exerted: 14 pounds per square inch?). From directly below me feet, the planet is blocking y (zillion) of the gravitons, so there is a net force downward exerted by (simplisticly) x-y gravitons. If I look toward the horizon, from that direction, I'm still being pushed by about x gravitons, since nothing is blocking their path. (From the opposite horizon, I'm pushed by the same amount, so no net force.)

When I look 10° below the horizon, at the dirt 100 feet away, from that direction I'm being pushed by x-z gravitons where z is the number blocked by the little bit of the planet they had to pass through. Let's move to 45° below the horizontal. From there, x-w gravitons are pushing me. The size of w (and z) will depend on the density of the material that the gravitons had to pass through. On earth, that might be 40% of y, but on Jupiter that might be 20% of y. So the amount and distribution of the gravitons reaching me from below, through the planet, will depend on the material in the planet in various locations.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the "shape" of the gravitional force that I feel on the surface will be dependant, not on the overall density of the planet, but on the distribution of that density. If Jupiter has a very dense core, but is very sparse near the surface, the "shape" will be different than on earth where the surface density is much more similar to the core density.

Is that any more understandable?

I don't know if there will be any practical use for this concept, but it may help clarify our thinking about how gravity works.

Glen

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2003 : 15:53:13

quote:
[MV]: How does the surface area of a body in relation to its compostition change the force of gravity generated by the body. For example does a large sphere with low density generate less gravity due to lower shielding than a smaller body with higher density where shielding is increased? Does this relate to this discussion about the strength of gravity or the newtonian mechanics of known bodies? MV

Shielding is not a factor in ordinary gravitation. If it exists at all, it is at the limits of our ability to detect. But when there is shielding, the greater the shielding, the less the resultant gravity. (Note distinction below between shielding and shadowing, which are opposite effects.)

quote:
[Glen]: Since reading your book many years ago, I've been trying to change my thinking about gravity from a force that pulls me toward the earth, to an external force that is pushing me toward the earth. Would you say that is the right way of thinking about it?

Your thinking is correct, but perhaps unnecessary. An important part of the Le Sage model is that gravity can be thought of as a push coming from the outside, or as a pull coming from the inside. The resultant force is identical either way. So if you are more comfortable, as most of us are, with thinking in terms of pulls, there is nothing wrong with that.

Think of it this way. A graviton heading toward the Sun might hit the Earth instead, giving Earth a push toward the Sun. But that push would not exist if the Sun had not blocked another graviton heading toward the Earth from the sunward side. So we can describe Earth's reaction as responding to a push from the outside, or equally well as responding to a negative-mass (missing) graviton on the inside that pulls instead of pushes.

quote:
So when I think about gravitational sheilding, I'm thinking of the effect induced by the presence of a massive object (the planet) next to me - it is sheilding me from the impacts of the gravitation "particles" from that side. Since I'm being pushed by more gravitons coming from the other direction, the net effect is that I'm pushed toward the earth. Is that a valid way of thinking about it? How would you rephrase that into more correct terms?

A point of terminology. We call the blockage of gravitons by masses "shadowing", not "shielding". Any two bodies in space shadow one another from some graviton impacts. Shielding occurs when bodies become so dense that gravitons can no longer get all the way through them, so some matter deep in the interior no longer blocks gravitons and therefore no longer contributes to the external gravitational force.

Here's another analogy to try out. Suppose a swarm of bees flies in front of the Sun. Ordinarily, that shadows us from some sunlight, and the amount of shadowing is proportional to the number of bees. But if the swarm were so dense that some bees were already in the shadow of other bees, then those shadowed bees would block no additional sunlight. They would fail to contribute. That's shielding.

Forget shielding for all but the most advanced purposes. Ordinary gravity works by shadowing.

quote:
Standing on the surface of the earth, I'm being pushed by x (zillion) gravitons from directly above my head (pressure exerted: 14 pounds per square inch?).

The 14 psi is the weight of the atmosphere above us, not the pressure of the gravitons. The gravitons from above exceed the gravitons from below by 1 g (10 m/s^2 acceleration).

quote:
From directly below me feet, the planet is blocking y (zillion) of the gravitons, so there is a net force downward exerted by (simplisticly) x-y gravitons. If I look toward the horizon, from that direction, I'm still being pushed by about x gravitons, since nothing is blocking their path. (From the opposite horizon, I'm pushed by the same amount, so no net force.)

That looks right.

quote:
When I look 10° below the horizon, at the dirt 100 feet away, from that direction I'm being pushed by x-z gravitons where z is the number blocked by the little bit of the planet they had to pass through. Let's move to 45° below the horizontal. From there, x-w gravitons are pushing me. The size of w (and z) will depend on the density of the material that the gravitons had to pass through. On earth, that might be 40% of y, but on Jupiter that might be 20% of y. So the amount and distribution of the gravitons reaching me from below, through the planet, will depend on the material in the planet in various locations.

All true. But Newton long ago showed that all spherical shells of uniform density give rise to the same outside force as if the same mass was concentrated at the shell's center. Moreover, such shells give rise to zero internal force (everywhere interior, from shell to center).

Earth can be considered, to good approximation, as made up of many layers of uniform spherical shells. Density can change from shell to shell without changing the next effect. Local density variations are very minor compared to the force from the rest of the whole Earth or planet. But in fact, the direction of the vertical does change slightly, especially near mountains or seashores. Astronomers and geodicists have to take that into account in certain types of precise observations.

An extreme case is an asteroid with a highly deformed shape. Eros is such a case. There are places on Eros where the net gravitational force is sideways or even upward relative to the local surface.

quote:
I guess what I'm getting at is that the "shape" of the gravitional force that I feel on the surface will be dependant, not on the overall density of the planet, but on the distribution of that density. If Jupiter has a very dense core, but is very sparse near the surface, the "shape" will be different than on earth where the surface density is much more similar to the core density.

True in principle. But because of the uniform spherical shell axiom, there is not as much difference as you might think. However, Jupiter is a lot more flattened than Earth, largely in response to its faster spin.

quote:
Is that any more understandable?

It is indeed. I only hope my answers were some approximation of being as clear as your questions. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

glittle

Canada
37 Posts

Posted - 10 Jan 2003 : 23:10:19

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Glen

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Mac

USA
646 Posts

Posted - 11 Jan 2003 : 12:32:44

UniKEF closely parallels the LeSage view expressed here. I will only add that I am begining to view the Chiral Condensate as the source of the driving energy which attenuation by mass causes the push force of gravity.

PS: In UniKEF there is a calculus analysis which shows Push Gravity to be:

F = U x ~ x [m1 + m2]x (trig cone of sources integrated)

Where U is the UniKEF energy field and ~ is an absorbtion coefficient.

It is a very comforting conclusion to see gravity the "Sum of Mass" vs "Mass Squared":

Conventional:

m1 x m2 = mass squared
F = G x ---------
r^2

The r^2 function works out in the integration process.

Mac

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

shewhowatches

USA
1 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2003 : 18:59:20

If the L2=EM, then gravity would not exist. Gravity is symptomatic of the contained rest energy of a ferric domain. Where energy does not equal matter.
The angle and degree of lights refraction sets gravitational boundaries. Gravity is a force that always attracts, never repels.....an action asymmetric. But the force of the magnetic monopole in lieu of a new elucidation of the atoms, or monopolarity of the atoms is symmetric in that from its center the light is equidistant at any point on the periphery, hence no angle of refracted light to set up the probability for gravity.
When the incident angle of light equals its reflection one sees a vertical velocity that equals the angular momentum, an act of simultaneity where Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty now shows that (q)is to(p) what (p) is to (q) The position and momentum are one and the same and the time factor no longer in question. Nor is there Planck's constant to remind us of the deficit in energy loss.
Light squared unifies the electro-weak and magnetic-strong forces where the wave/particle duality of light is no longer confront. No impact on mass by gravity nor density to test the reverberation or echo of sound or the light obstructed in waves propagating angle for refraction as they run back to back, or head to head. When light and sound are timely, they shall be orchestrated and cast in the symmetry of the aether....that from this center all is equidistant at any point........a place out of space and time that offers one the sense of unification, and here it is no longer our objective.

L2=EM if (cv)[(hv)(1/2mv2)]=L2

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 4.77 seconds.