Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity question

  1. Oct 20, 2003 #1
    does gravity only have a certain amount of force it can have to pull matter towards it?

    for example lets say there is a planet with nothing on it but natural features (like mars) and you put one person on it... the gravity of mars is now using its force on that person to keep them planted on the ground. is the fact that the gravity is controlling that person, now weaken the gravity as a whole? I know one person would not have any noticible difference, but that is just an example.. lets say jam packed on the entire surface, you have people. is the force now less because it is being used?

    sorry if its confusing.. it makes more sense when i think about it than type it
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2003 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No. There is not some "gravity storage" inside Mars, of which Mars uses a little to hold each person. All that matters in gravity are these things:

    1) The mass of the first body. Say, Mars. Call it M.
    2) The mass of the second body. Say, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Call it m.
    3) The distance between them. Say, the radius of Mars. Call it r.
    4) The gravitational constant, which is a feature of the entire universe (think of it as simply a conversion factor that relates our human units.) Call it G.

    The formula for force (F) is:

    F = (G M m) / r^2

    As you can see, as long as you don't change the mass or size of Mars, it can hold as many people on it as you can pack in.

    - Warren
     
  4. Oct 20, 2003 #3
    Yes, this is the traditional understanding of gravity. But do not forget that all objects have the same acceleration in free fall. The reason is that gravity is from its origin not a force but an acceleration.

    We know very precisely that the speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. As a consequence every fast moving object (like a photon) is subject to refraction. It will be bended towards the source of gravitation (e.g. the Mars).

    Also the particles which oscillate inside of an elementary particle are subject to refraction. This causes the gravitational acceleration.
     
  5. Oct 20, 2003 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wrong. Gravitation is from its origin a result of geometry. This has nothing to do with the question posed, which is entirely explainable within the bounds of Newtonian gravity.
    Wrong. This does not happen at all. All observers, everywhere, even those deep inside gravitational wells, will measure c the same.
    Wrong. Light is subject to gravitation because gravitation is the result of the curvature of spacetime. Light follows the shortest paths in curved spacetime, and thus bends.
    I have no idea what this means. Elementary particles are not composite -- by definition, and we have no currently acceptable theory of gravitation at the scale of elementary particles.

    - Warren
     
  6. Oct 20, 2003 #5

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Gravity question

    Why post what you THINK? How useful are your THOUGHTS in the General Physics forum? If you want to debate your THOUGHTS, go to a theory development forum.

    The fact is there is no conservation of force, only of energy. What kleinma suggested is absolutely, profoundly wrong.

    - Warren
     
  7. Oct 20, 2003 #6
    Yes, if energy is actually conserved. It's like the situation
    with the protons in the nucleus- it can only support so many
    electrons (since energy is conserved).
     
  8. Oct 20, 2003 #7

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Gravity question

    This is also incorrect. All atoms can be ionized, both positively and negatively. Stop posting nonsensical crap.

    - Warren
     
  9. Oct 20, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Force has to be conserved if it depends on the particles
    emanating the force. Imagine the situation in the atom-
    if the force of attraction of protons arent' conserved,
    you can pack an infinite amount of electrons in an atom
    using just one proton.
     
  10. Oct 20, 2003 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Newsflash: YOU CAN.

    - Warren
     
  11. Oct 20, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Yes, but atoms can also be neutral, why? Because the positive
    force of the protons are all used up. You have to ionize
    (get rid of an electron) the atom for there to be more
    force available for use.
     
  12. Oct 20, 2003 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Saying it's true again and again doesn't make it true.

    - Warren
     
  13. Oct 20, 2003 #12
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    No you can't, a hydrogen atom can only support 2 electrons
    before it becomes unstable.
     
  14. Oct 20, 2003 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Wrong.

    - Warren
     
  15. Oct 20, 2003 #14
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    My saying it true doesn't make it true but the fact
    that a positive charge can only support two negative
    charges (hydrogen atom) and not 3 or more, makes it
    true. If the force wasn't conserved, a proton should be
    able to support more than 2 electrons.
     
  16. Oct 20, 2003 #15

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Why do you think this is true? Who told you this? What reference do you have?

    - Warren
     
  17. Oct 20, 2003 #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    My reference is logical interpretation of the physical
    experiments. Do you deny that a proton can only support
    two electrons, as in the situation with the hydrogen
    atom? If so, how can you say that force is not conserved?
    Where is the positive force outside of a hydrogen
    atom? Or for that matter, where is the negative force? They
    are all being used to stabilize the atom. Only after
    you ionize the hydrogen atom (get rid of an electron) can you have
    more force to attract an (and only enough for one) electron.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2003
  18. Oct 20, 2003 #17

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity question

    Yes, I vehemently deny that. Show me an experiment that corroborates your position, or shut up.

    - Warren
     
  19. Oct 20, 2003 #18
  20. Oct 20, 2003 #19

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You provided links to online periodic tables. I see nothing that corroborates your assertion that H-- can't exist.

    - Warren
     
  21. Oct 20, 2003 #20

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, the force acting on each person on the jam-packed world wouldbe greater than that working on the one standing on the planet alone. Because now not only does each person have Mars pulling on them, put they also have the mass of each of the other people pulling on them.

    Think about it, if the force of gravity weakened by how much it had to hold, then larger planets would have weaker gravity because more and more of the force of gravity it has would be used up just to hold the planet itself together. But this is not the case, as we see that larger planets have stronger gravity.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Gravity question
  1. Gravity question (Replies: 4)

  2. A Gravity Question (Replies: 11)

  3. Question on gravity? (Replies: 3)

  4. Question on gravity (Replies: 16)

  5. Gravity question (Replies: 2)

Loading...