Gravitation Mass & Proportional Gravity: Exploring Attraction Between Objects

[Noel Todd]

For all the theorists on gravitation, I would beg to ask a question on mass and it's proportional effect with gravity. IE :Greatest mass = Heaviest object.

Simplistically, Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass? Bowling ball falls to Earth via gravitational pull

 

[Dr.D]

If you watch very, very carefully, the Earth jumps up to join your bowling ball. But don't blink or you'll miss it.

 

[Drakkith]

Simplistically, Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass? Bowling ball falls to Earth via gravitational pull

If we have three objects of different masses, all three will be attracted to each other. However, the force felt by the two lighter objects is greater in the direction of the heaviest object (assuming they are equidistant to each other). The net sum of the force will accelerate the two lighter objects towards each other as well as towards the heavier object. If these three objects were initially at rest with respect to each other in space, then they would all begin to accelerate and move, even the heaviest object.

As for why, the only answer I could give is that objects of higher mass simply have more gravitational pull (or spacetime curvature if we want to get into GR). It's a fundamental fact that has no real underlying explanation. One could also ask why electrical charges have the charge they do, or why the electromagnetic force obeys an inverse square law instead of something else.

 

[sweet springs]

Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass?

Not only heaviest mass but more or less any mass become attracted to the other masses according to mass quantity and distance, the inverse square of.
For an example, gravitational force work between the Sun and the Earth, the Earth and the Moon, and also the Sun and the Moon. The last one is usually neglected because it is much smaller than the others but we have to think of it for precise calculation of the Moon orbit.

 

[Ibix]

If you watch very, very carefully, the Earth jumps up to join your bowling ball. But don't blink or you'll miss it.

I keep reading this in the voice of Elmer Fudd. Be vewwy vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Thiwd Law weaction fowces.

Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass?

As others have noted, things are attracted to all masses. For example the ocean doesn't float off into space because it's attracted by the Earth's gravity. It does rise and fall due to the Moon's gravity and, to a lesser extent, the Sun's - these are tides.

I'm not sure there'll ever really be an answer to why. It's just part of having mass that you have a gravitational field. I suppose you could consider the idea that gravitational fields can be added together (more or less - it can get complicated) as a partial answer. Why does a 2kg mass have stronger gravity than a 1kg mass? Because it's two 1kg masses.

 

[Noel Todd]

Many thanks everyone, even Dr D. :-) I wonder if we are looking in the wrong direction for a hard answer, instead of looking in the right direction for an easy answer.
I theorise that the latent energy of an object is proportional to it's mass and some masses have a far greater latent energy than their mass. The Sun which has enormous latent energy but it is not proportional to it's mass. It in it's fluid state continues to absorb energy from any object close enough in space. This energy absorption (from other objects) causes a deficit and this drawing to is gravity. Similarly The Earth and Moon. An object that has no deficit of energy and does not absorb energy has no gravity pull.

 

[Ibix]

Many thanks everyone, even Dr D. :-) I wonder if we are looking in the wrong direction for a hard answer, instead of looking in the right direction for an easy answer.

I strongly recommend you get hold of a physics textbook. Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics covers Special Relativity to the extent that you should be able to bootstrap yourself up to General Relativity - I learned that from Sean Carroll's lecture notes which are available free online.

There's no point in speculating unless you are familiar enough with experiment and our models to understand what a new model has to explain. Physics Forums is an excellent place to develop that understanding, but we do not discuss personal theories, as stated in the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

 

[Drakkith]

An object that has no deficit of energy and does not absorb energy has no gravity pull.

There are no known objects that have no gravitational pull, no known objects that disobey our currently understood gravitational theories, and no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions.

 

[Ibix]

no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions.

Possibly pedantically, I don't think that's quite right. We don't understand what the gravitational field of a non-classical source (such as a single particle) looks like - hence the effort to develop a quantum theory of gravity. But it's definitely correct for macroscopic objects such as stars and planets.

 

[Noel Todd]

Very useful information, many thanks. I tend to run off in the head every now and then with mighty speculations, some right some mightily wrong. I will take your answers under consideration and do some more ciphering with Jethro Bodine. :-)

 

[PeroK]

Many thanks everyone, even Dr D. :-) I wonder if we are looking in the wrong direction for a hard answer, instead of looking in the right direction for an easy answer.
I theorise that the latent energy of an object is proportional to it's mass and some masses have a far greater latent energy than their mass. The Sun which has enormous latent energy but it is not proportional to it's mass. It in it's fluid state continues to absorb energy from any object close enough in space. This energy absorption (from other objects) causes a deficit and this drawing to is gravity. Similarly The Earth and Moon. An object that has no deficit of energy and does not absorb energy has no gravity pull.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that near the Earth only the Earth itself (whatever that means) exerts a gravitational pull; whereas, other smaller objects do not. This is not right. You should learn about the Cavendish experiment, for example, which measured the tiny attraction of two small masses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

It's only your lack of knowledge about gravity that allows you to speculate so wildly.

 

[Noel Todd]

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that near the Earth only the Earth itself (whatever that means) exerts a gravitational pull; whereas, other smaller objects do not.

Unsure where you read in my posts the above. Delusion is not one of my strong points, just as finesse is not one of yours!

 

[PeroK]

Simplistically, Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass? Bowling ball falls to Earth via gravitational pull

A bowling ball is attracted to all other objects, not just the Earth. A bowling ball dropped from an aeroplane is gravitationally attracted to the aeroplane (the nearest "large" object), the Earth, the Moon, the Sun etc. The gravitational pull from the Earth is overwhelmingly the greatest based on a combination of the Earth's mass and the distance from the ball to the Earth's centre of mass.

In the case of an object out in the solar system, you may have to take account of the gravity from the Sun and several planets to explain its trajectory: not just the pull from the "nearest, highest" mass.

 

[Noel Todd]

It's only your lack of knowledge about gravity that allows you to speculate so wildly

I am only too happy to talk to someone who knows what gravity is!

My original post did start with the word simplistic, possibly too simplistic but I wasn't expecting an answer to the age old problem of what Gravity is. Just it's relevance to the mass of the objects around each other and how the how the one with the greatest mass is attracted more to the next highest mass? It would seem it more important to point out my shortcomings in knowledge than getting a straight forward answer and some help.

Sorry to burden everyone you can have your site back to yourselves.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I wonder if we are looking in the wrong direction for a hard answer,

'We' have been looking at the phenomenon for a long time and the present theories fit the evidence better than any others. There is no such concept as "what it really is" when it comes to our physical world. All we have is models that work to a better or worse degree.

I am only too happy to talk to someone who knows what gravity is!

If they try to tell you what they 'know' then treat it with great suspicion. All they can tell you is some kind of formula which describes its effects.
Gravity appears to act between all objects in the Universe. The main effect is from the nearer, most massive objects. A ball, dropped on Earth, will still be in orbit around the Sun, which is held in a curved path around the centre of the Galaxy etc. etc. (Turtles all the way down)

 

[Dale]

Why do objects with the highest mass become attracted to the nearest highest mass?

Because $f=G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$. This is known as Newton’s law of gravitation, and it works very well for ordinary situations.

I theorise that

As others have pointed out, personal theories are not permitted here. This site is intended for learning about current physics, not developing new physics.

With that I will close the thread