Center of Gravity - Laws and Explaination

[Abishek]

This is my first thread, and I am excited to post it.
My question is that, did any Scientists do any research about Center of Gravity and formulated any laws or gave explanation to it's fundamental behavior? If so, then have they considered the Center of Gravity of liquids and semi-solid objects?

 

[A.T.]

This is my first thread, and I am excited to post it.
My question is that, did any Scientists do any research about Center of Gravity and formulated any laws or gave explanation to it's fundamental behavior? If so, then have they considered the Center of Gravity of liquids and semi-solid objects?

What "fundamental behavior" do you mean? The definition of "objects" is rather arbitrary and the center of gravity can be computed for any arbitrary collection of point masses.

 

[Abishek]

What "fundamental behavior" do you mean? The definition of "objects" is rather arbitrary and the center of gravity can be computed for any arbitrary collection of point masses.

I think you don't understand the question. I asked for any scientists who made any research on COG.

If you can calculate the the COG for any arbitrary collection of point masses, then can you calculate the point masses of fluids and semi solids?

 

[A.T.]

If you can calculate the the COG for any arbitrary collection of point masses, then can you calculate the point masses of fluids and semi solids?

You can calculate the COG for fluid bodies, or arbitrary parts of them.

 

[SteamKing]

Since fluid takes the shape of its container, the c.o.g. of the fluid will be the same as the center of volume of the container below the liquid level.

Engineers calculate the c.o.g. of fluids in containers every day. It's a standard calculation for naval architects and any other engineers involved with stored fluids. I don't see any big mystery here. Probably the last scientist involved with c.o.g. 'theory', if there is such a beast, was Isaac Newton, who enunciated the concept of a c.o.g. in the first place. There might have been one or two naval architects involved later when that discipline was being put on a scientific foundation, but that was just adding different applications for which the concept already existed.

 

[Abishek]

Then how about these observations?

COG:

1.Every particle in an object consisting of more than one
particle bonded by enough force exhibits the property of
normalizing their respective gravitation of each and every
individual particle by their relative position to one another
to a well defined area in space.

2.This defined position in space represents and reflects the
gravity of all the particles in the object.

3.An object will be considered to be stable, (having 'n'
particles in its domain), if and only if, the change in
physical parameters such as heat, vibration, impulse or
change in momentum does not being about the reduction in any
part of the 'n' particles from the domain of the object and
their relative position to one another.(although this is
non-practical, values may vary)

4.The defined part of space of the object acts as the center
point for all the external or internal changes that may
occur to the object, in which any change in the number of
particles, their relative position and the influence by any
internal and external forces will be reflected immediately
upon that particular region of space.

5.This well defined space varies from object to object,
depending upon their count for particles and their relative
distance from one another.

6.This space might occupy a singular point in most stable
objects; a straight line in objects under angular
displacement; a two dimensional area of well defined
boundaries in case of multi stable objects; a three
dimensional area having stable or dynamic boundaries in their
space.

7.Each and every object is bound to this space to an extent
such that, any linear or angular changes in momentum caused
by both internal and external influences will be reacted
directly from and about this region of space.

8.Any external impulse will cause the object to rotate with
an angular momentum proportional to the impulse and a line
passing tangentially throughout this region of space as it's
axis of rotation in free space, void of any other external
forces or forces with relatively small influence.

9.Any object that is in free space can rotate in two axes
simultaneously, both passing through this region of space, in
which both the axes coincide with one another at this
particular region of space.

10.An object that has definite number of particles in it's
domain and a definite relative position of the particles in
the domain is said to be stable under standard internal and
external influences.

11.An object having definite number of particles in it's
domain but has a dynamic relative position of the particles in
the domain is said to be dynamic under standard internal and
external influences.

12.A stable object is likely to have a well defined region in
space while a dynamic object will have a more complex and
irrational region in space and will vary with each and every
relativistic change in the position of the other particles.

13.Two different objects with comparatively different defined
regions in space can be bound together into a single stable
object by atomic or molecular binding forces such that their
resulting region of space will be exactly in the middle of
the line joining their respective spaces. For two stable
objects, it can be a two or three dimensional region in space
while for dynamic objects, it could be a dynamic region of
space, that changes with the relative change in either one of
the dynamic objects.

14.Such a region in space possessed by an object is termed as
"Center Of Gravity" or COG for short.

 

[SteamKing]

Well, if you like overthinking a simple concept, Post #6 ought to get a Noble Prize, or an Ignobel Prize.

To determine the c.o.g. for most things, it's more a matter of geometry than any particularly deep thinking.

To paraphrase Borek, Post #6 is a 14-course 'word salad'.

 

[Abishek]

Well, if you like overthinking a simple concept, Post #6 ought to get a Noble Prize, or an Ignobel Prize.

To determine the c.o.g. for most things, it's more a matter of geometry than any particularly deep thinking.

To paraphrase Borek, Post #6 is a 14-course 'word salad'.

Thank you for your reading and reply of the "simple concepts". COG is not just a matter of geometry, but involves the bonds that exists between each and every particle, and also the nature of the bonds and it gets more complicated if non-homogeneous objects are bought into consideration.

Yes, I like over thinking a simple concept, like Newton who obsessed with an apple which fell on his head. By the way, COG is simple to our view because we experience it within the Earth's gravitational field. You have no idea what will happen when complex objects behave in space...

 

[A.T.]

Yes, I like over thinking a simple concept, like Newton who obsessed with an apple which fell on his head.

Newton wasn't over thinking but rather simplifying things by introducing a simple and universal law of gravitation.

 

[SteamKing]

COG is not just a matter of geometry, but involves the bonds that exists between each and every particle, and also the nature of the bonds and it gets more complicated if non-homogeneous objects are bought into consideration.

I'm afraid you need to cite some scientific paper or study to provide a foundation for these assertions.

I sorry to disappoint you, but 'bonds' have nothing to do with determining the c.g of an object.

 

[Doc Al]

COG is not just a matter of geometry, but involves the bonds that exists between each and every particle, and also the nature of the bonds and it gets more complicated if non-homogeneous objects are bought into consideration.

In a uniform gravitational field, center of gravity is the same as center of mass.

But neither has anything to do with the internal forces or bonds within an object. All that matters is the mass distribution.

 

[Abishek]

I'm afraid you need to cite some scientific paper or study to provide a foundation for these assertions.

I sorry to disappoint you, but 'bonds' have nothing to do with determining the c.g of an object.

Yeah, well if I had found any scientific paper that provided a foundation for these assertions, I wouldn't be here.

I am sorry to disappoint you too, but they do play a role in determining the COG of an object.

If you still don't get a picture, imagine you have a stick. A long stick and you are holding it in your hand vertically. You can find the COG of the stick, it'll be right in the middle of it.Now, as you are holding it, one arbitrary portion of the stick gets weak and the rest of the stick begins to break apart slowly. Now where do you think the COG will be?

 

[Abishek]

Newton wasn't over thinking but rather simplifying things by introducing a simple and universal law of gravitation.

Yes, he clearly was over thinking instead of just eating the apple. In fact, he wouldn't have even thought about "simplifying" even though, he did no experiments, just an object fell over his head.

 

[Doc Al]

If you still don't get a picture, imagine you have a stick. A long stick and you are holding it in your hand vertically. You can find the COG of the stick, it'll be right in the middle of it.Now, as you are holding it, one arbitrary portion of the stick gets weak and the rest of the stick begins to break apart slowly. Now where do you think the COG will be?

As long as the mass distribution remains the same, so will the COG. If the mass redistributes, the COG will change accordingly.

You need to understand how COG/COM is defined.

 

[Doc Al]

Yes, he clearly was over thinking instead of just eating the apple. In fact, he wouldn't have even thought about "simplifying" even though, he did no experiments, just an object fell over his head.

I think you can stop comparing yourself to Newton.

 

[Abishek]

In a uniform gravitational field, center of gravity is the same as center of mass.

But neither has anything to do with the internal forces or bonds within an object. All that matters is the mass distribution.

Black holes get changed in their internal symmetry due to gravity.If that's too easy, consider the sea. It is in an uniform gravitational field, but you have no idea of center of gravity or center of mass.

I am trying to understand gravity in a whole new level... not just mass, not just symmetry, not just the bond or it's nature, not just about the object itself even though how much complicated it is.

We cannot apply the standard center of mass and center of gravity calculation to all objects in the universe. Each and every single particle in the atom which determine it's characteristics contribute to the nature of the object. We cannot conclude into discarded and unexplored parts of science because it is redundant...

 

[Abishek]

As long as the mass distribution remains the same, so will the COG. If the mass redistributes, the COG will change accordingly.

You need to understand how COG/COM is defined.

Do you have an imaginative mind? btw, I am not Newton and am not comparing him with me...

 

[Doc Al]

Sounds like you are not interested in mainstream science, but in your personal theories. That is a violation of our rules.

On that note, this thread is closed.