Half the size and mass, stronger force of gravity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a thought experiment regarding gravitational force between a point mass and a cube of uniform density. The original poster (OP) proposes that removing half of the cube would increase gravitational force due to a reduction in mass and distance to the center of gravity. However, responses clarify that the gravitational force equation GmM/r^2 is only applicable for point-like or spherically symmetric objects, and that the center of gravity for a hollow cube remains at its center. Consequently, the gravitational attraction decreases as mass is lost, contradicting the OP's initial assumption.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
  • Familiarity with the shell theorem in gravitational physics
  • Knowledge of gravitational force calculations for different geometries
  • Concept of center of mass in three-dimensional objects
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the shell theorem on gravitational forces
  • Learn about gravitational force calculations for non-spherical objects
  • Explore the concept of center of mass in various geometrical shapes
  • Investigate gravitational effects in multi-body systems
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in gravitational theory and its applications in real-world scenarios.

PaulMango
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've arrived at a non-sensical solution for a pretty simple thought experiment about gravity. Please let me know where my thinking is breaking down:

Assume we have a cube of even density and a point mass on center of one of the sides. There is a force of gravity between the two of GmM/r^2 where r is half the length of one of the sides (the distance to the center of gravity of the cube). Now imagine the half of the cube farthest from the point mass disappears. It vaporizes. Now the mass of the cube is M/2, but the distance to the center of gravity is r/2. This would indicate an INCREASE in the force of gravity, but this is far from intuitive. Any ideas where I'm wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PaulMango said:
There is a force of gravity between the two of GmM/r^2
This is only true between point-like objects (or outside of spherically symmetric objects).
 
The shell theorem only applies for spherical distributions of matter. Treating a cube (or half cube) as a point is probably not going to get you great results. :)
 
Thanks for the reply! I thought that may be the case - didn't realize that equation was based on that assumption.
 
I'm not convinced the OP's question has been addressed.

I suspect that his question will still exist, even he switches to using a spherical mass. I guess that's really up to the OP though.
 
PaulMango said:
I've arrived at a non-sensical solution for a pretty simple thought experiment about gravity. Please let me know where my thinking is breaking down:

Assume we have a cube of even density and a point mass on center of one of the sides. There is a force of gravity between the two of GmM/r^2 where r is half the length of one of the sides (the distance to the center of gravity of the cube). Now imagine the half of the cube farthest from the point mass disappears. It vaporizes. Now the mass of the cube is M/2, but the distance to the center of gravity is r/2. This would indicate an INCREASE in the force of gravity, but this is far from intuitive. Any ideas where I'm wrong?

Your fundamental mistake (apart from using a cube rather vthan a sphere) is to assume that the centre of gravity of a hollow cube or sphere is not at its centre. In this case, a point on the surface is still a distance r from the centre of mass.

So, the gravity on the surface reduces in proportional to the mass you have lost. This would be true of any spherically symmetrical reduction in the mass.
 
If he uses a spherical masses instead he will need to specify what parts of the sphere disappears. If half the sphere mass disappears in such a way that the result is a new sphere, the force will decrease if applying the spherical solution. (Naturally, it will always decrease if using a correct approach.)
 
At the risk of re-hashing what has already been said. If you want to compare apples with apples then the smaller cube must still be a cube. It must have been cut in half in all three dimensions. So you slice away the far 1/2 cube. Then you slice off the outside of the flattened shape that remains. Result is a cube that is 1/8 the mass of the original and is at 1/2 the distance. An argument from symmetry indicates that it must therefore have 1/2 the attractive force (at its surface).

The gravitational attraction of a cube of uniform density at its surface scales directly with the linear dimensions of the cube, just like the gravitational attraction of a sphere of uniform density scales directly with the linear dimensions of the sphere.
 
PaulMango said:
I've arrived at a non-sensical solution for a pretty simple thought experiment about gravity. Please let me know where my thinking is breaking down:

Assume we have a cube of even density and a point mass on center of one of the sides. There is a force of gravity between the two of GmM/r^2 where r is half the length of one of the sides (the distance to the center of gravity of the cube). Now imagine the half of the cube farthest from the point mass disappears. It vaporizes. Now the mass of the cube is M/2, but the distance to the center of gravity is r/2. This would indicate an INCREASE in the force of gravity, but this is far from intuitive. Any ideas where I'm wrong?

I am pretty sure that the new r is not r/2, but something greater than that (although less than the original r).

The decrease in M is much greater than the decrease in r. Meaning that gravity will decrease.
 
  • #10
If it was just sliced in half would be less gravity to the point on center face because y and z extremities cancel out, the point is closer to the center of mass so to speak.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K