B How the role of Mass is justified for below cases? (Earth/Moon, Jupiter/Io)

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter rajen0201
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the role of mass in gravitational interactions, particularly between Earth and the Moon, as well as Jupiter and Io, in the context of Newton's laws and Einstein's General Relativity. Participants clarify that the term "reduction of gravity" is misleading, as the Moon's gravitational influence does not decrease its own gravity but affects weight through tidal forces. The conversation also highlights the importance of distinguishing between gravitational and tidal accelerations, emphasizing that the latter accounts for variations in weight experienced on Earth due to the Moon's presence. Misunderstandings regarding the calculations of gravitational effects and the influence of orbital dynamics are addressed, stressing the need for precise physics to avoid confusion. Overall, the thread underscores the complexity of gravitational interactions and the necessity of accurate representation in calculations.
rajen0201
Messages
42
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
Refer attachment. The distance between Io moon to Jupiter and our Moon to Earth is nearly the same. also, diameter, density & gravity are nearly the same. The ratio of gravity for Earth/Moon is 80.4 times vs ratio of gravity for Jupiter/Io is 20276.7. Also, Jupiter has reduced Io’s gravity by 0.68m/s2 vs Earth has reduced Moon’s gravity by 0.0027m/s2. If Io escapes its absolute gravity will be 1.8+0.68=2.48m/s2 vs Moon’s absolute gravity is 1.62+0.0027=1.6227m/s2.
How the role of Mass justified for the above cases in Newton's gravitation laws & in Einstein's GR?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by justifying the role of mass? Also, what are you talking about reducing gravity and absolute gravity?

Also, please put your calculations in LaTeX in your post. I am not downloading and opening an excel spreadsheet.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
rajen0201 said:
Earth has reduced Moon’s gravity by 0.0027m/s2.
This seems to refer to the moon's centripetal acceleration due to Earth's gravity. It is a mistake to word this as a reduction in the moon's gravity. If I were to place a weight scale anywhere on the moon, it would read my weight as say 150N anywhere on the moon, and this would not change at all if the moon happened not to be in orbit about anything. Ditto with IO. There's no reduction of gravity going on.

There are tidal effects which may be significant, but 0.0027m/s2 is not a measure of tidal acceleration or force.
 
Last edited:
Dale said:
reducing gravity and absolute gravity?
we know Moon gravity reduces the effect of Earth's surface gravity . the same term is used for Earth gravity reduces the effect of moon surface gravity.
I termed absolute gravity for Moons when they are not in the influence of other object's gravity. Trust that I am not familiar with LaTeX. PDF attached.
 

Attachments

Halc said:
It is a mistake to word this as a reduction in the moon's gravity
Note that, On Earth's surface, Moon's attraction effect reduces our weight by 3.31E-5 N/kg. We can directly say Moon reduces Earth gravity in a similar way. I hope you understand what I want to say.
 
Last edited:
rajen0201 said:
Note that, On Earth's surface, Moon's attraction effect reduces our weight by 3.31E-5 N/kg.
It does not. Please show your work.

I get less than 1.2E-6 due to tidal forces on nearside:
GMm/(R-re)2 - GMm/R2
To compute the same on the moon, switch all the m and e subscripts.
 
Halc said:
It does not. Please show your work.

I get less than 1.2E-6 due to tidal forces:
...and that's positive or negative (or zero) depending on where you/the moon is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
rajen0201 said:
Note that, On Earth's surface, Moon's attraction effect reduces our weight by 3.31E-5 N/kg. We can directly say Moon reduces Earth gravity in a similar way. I hope you understand what I want to say.
I'm guessing you didn't account for the fact that they orbit each other.
 
russ_watters said:
...and that's positive or negative (or zero) depending on where you/the moon is).
Interesting to compute the tiny added weight at half-moon (that causes low tides), but the figure I posted is expressed as a positive reduction in weight on either near or far side. The far side figure is just over 1.1E-6.

Is "positive reduction" a contradiction? :wink:
Anyway, it's the way the OP expressed the value when asserting the 3.31E-5 figure.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Dale
  • #10
Halc said:
Interesting to compute the tiny added weight at half-moon (that causes low tides), but the figure I posted is a positive reduction in weight on either near or far side. The far side figure is just over 1.1E-6.

Is "positive reduction" a contradiction? ;)
Anyway, it's the way the OP expressed the value when asserting the 3.31E-5 figure.
Dang, I fell into the OP's trap; yeah, tidal force is always negative (up) - it's the OP's idea I suspect (stationary bodies) that would have positive or negative forces.
 
  • #11
rajen0201 said:
we know Moon gravity reduces the effect of Earth's surface gravity
No. We don’t know that. It is wrong.

rajen0201 said:
Note that, On Earth's surface, Moon's attraction effect reduces our weight by 3.31E-5 N/kg. We can directly say Moon reduces Earth gravity in a similar way. I hope you understand what I want to say.
No. This is wrong. Or at least it is not right everywhere on the surface. This will change in magnitude and direction on the surface
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Halc said:
1.2E-6
You are talking about tidal force that is equal to gravity force at near side-gravity force at center of earth.
I have pt the value as per g=GM/r2 for moon.
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Dang, I fell into the OP's trap; yeah, tidal force is always negative (up) - it's the OP's idea I suspect (stationary bodies) that would have positive or negative forces.
Not sure if we mean the same by "tidal force", but it is "up" at the near and far side, while being "down" at 90° to that.
 
  • #14
Dale said:
No. We don’t know that. It is wrong.

No. This is wrong. Or at least it is not right everywhere on the surface. This will change in magnitude and direction on the surface
how?
 
  • #15
rajen0201 said:
how?
At one point on the surface the moon is “up”, on the opposite side it is “down”, and in between it is “horizontal”.
 
  • #16
A.T. said:
Not sure if we mean the same by "tidal force", but it is "up" at the near and far side, while being "down" at 90° to that.
Fair enough -- I didn't think the separation angle created at 90 degrees was significant enough for a "down" force to be significant/notable.
 
  • #17
@rajen0201 also, what do you mean by justifying the role of mass? You still haven’t explained that. Your OP is incomprehensible as is.
 
  • #18
rajen0201 said:
You are talking about tidal force that is equal to gravity force at near side-gravity force at center of earth.
I have pt the value as per g=GM/r2 for moon.
Yes, that gets the value for centripetal acceleration at some distance from mass M. Centripetal acceleration has no direct effect on your weight on the moon since both you and the moon accelerate identically. Any weight you lose by having Earth overhead is completely canceled by the moon also accelerating towards you from below. Only tidal effects have a nonzero effect on weight since it computes the difference in respective centripetal accelerations of you and the moon.

russ_watters said:
Fair enough -- I didn't think the separation angle created at 90 degrees was significant enough for a "down" force to be significant/notable.
It's tiny compared to the 'up' of say farside, but it's not zero. At a point on Earth where moon is exactly at horizon, the effect is zero. At halfway, the moon is just below the horizon.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Dale and russ_watters
  • #19
rajen0201 said:
we know Moon gravity reduces the effect of Earth's surface gravity
I think the OP is adding (vectorially) the effects of Earth and Moon gravity vectors for a position with the Moon overhead. So, in the Antipodes, the attractive forces would add so weight would appear to be greater. But, as has been mentioned, this ignores the small matter of the mutual Orbit.
Perhaps the OP should read about Lagrange Points.
 
  • #20
rajen0201 said:
how?

How is the gravitational force on the person "reduced" here by the moon?
earth-moon.jpg

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #21
Dale said:
@rajen0201 also, what do you mean by justifying the role of mass? You still haven’t explained that. Your OP is incomprehensible as is.
Suppose moon/Io is not there, both Earth/Jupiter will have higher gravity than current values against their masses. How current theories address this issue?
 
  • Haha
Likes davenn
  • #22
rajen0201 said:
Suppose moon/Io is not there, both Earth/Jupiter will have higher gravity than current values against their masses. How current theories address this issue?
1. Have you read all the replies on the thread?
2. Do you have any citations for your idea?
 
  • #23
rajen0201 said:
Suppose moon/Io is not there, both Earth/Jupiter will have higher gravity than current values against their masses. How current theories address this issue?
Are you asking about how gravity from different sources is combined? In Newtonian Gravity it's just vector addition. In GR it's complicated.
 
  • #24
rajen0201 said:
Suppose moon/Io is not there, both Earth/Jupiter will have higher gravity than current values against their masses. How current theories address this issue?
First, the claim isn’t true. Second in general the gravitational field is calculated by including all of the sources of gravity, not just one. You cannot deliberately ignore significant gravitating masses. That is just silly.
 
  • #25
ZapperZ said:
How is the gravitational force on the person "reduced" here by the moon?
View attachment 264001
Zz.
Moon reduces whole Earth's gravity it is not like near side & far side.
 
  • Haha
Likes davenn
  • #26
A.T. said:
Are you asking about how gravity from different sources is combined? In Newtonian Gravity it's just vector addition. In GR it's complicated.
As per equation g = GM/R^2, its value must be constant, but here, it is increasing.
 
  • #27
Dale said:
First, the claim isn’t true.
How?
 
  • Sad
Likes Dale
  • #28
sophiecentaur said:
1. Have you read all the replies on the thread?
2. Do you have any citations for your idea?
I am giving relies on all members. please see the thread discussion. also, give sufficient time to reply all.
What is the meaning if we require citations to discuss well-established science. This is a general discussion and nothing more.
Earlier my two threads were blocked in the name of citations.
 
  • #29
rajen0201 said:
Moon reduces whole Earth's gravity it is not like near side & far side.

Please show me the physics you are using the arrive at this error. In particular, draw a free-body diagram for that person.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Dale
  • #30
rajen0201 said:
What is the meaning if we require citations to discuss well-established science.
It means that we don’t think what you are describing actually is well-established science. Requiring you to post what you believe supports your concept will allow us to determine if you are misunderstanding a correct source or simply using a bad source.

All posts on PF should be consistent with the professional scientific literature. Providing such references upon request is a key part of how we accomplish this. Such requests should always be respected

rajen0201 said:
Earlier my two threads were blocked in the name of citations.
Yes, if references were requested and not provided they will get blocked
 
  • #31
ZapperZ said:
How is the gravitational force on the person "reduced" here by the moon?
View attachment 264001
Bumping this. It really looks to me like this is the error: the spreadsheet calculates g for the static situation shown in the above diagram, with and without the Moon. Obviously, this ignores both the orbit and rotation of the Earth.

@rajen0201 you really should be able to see that if the person is anywhere else on Earth the net force (acceleration) will be different. (even before considering what happens when they are in motion...)
 
  • #32
There are quite a few moving parts to this question (literally!) and lots of room for misinterpretation (I'm not sure I'm even clear on the exact parameters of the OPs question!) so I thought it might be worth breaking it down into a few different problems just to see if it makes things any clearer. Suppose the person is in the same position w.r.t the Earth and moon in each scenario:

1. Consider both the Earth and the Moon to be at rest; then the effective weight is just the vector sum of the forces from the Earth and the Moon, as I think OP has already done.

2. Consider the centres of mass of the Earth and the Moon to be at rest, but now the Earth is rotating about its axis. Now compute the new effective weight of a person on the surface of the Earth.

3. Now consider that neither the Earth nor the Moon are rotating, but instead that their centres of mass are no longer fixed. Ignore tidal effects (i.e. consider the field strength of the moon uniform in the vicinity of the Earth); what happens to the effective weight? Be careful!

4. Now the Earth is still not rotating, however you now consider tidal effects. What is your effective weight in the frame of the surface of the Earth?

5. Finally, you now let the Earth rotate and accelerate toward the moon in the space frame, along with tidal effects.

Some of these might be redundant, but I hoped it might help to see how the different effects fit together!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
It really looks to me like this is the error: the spreadsheet calculates g for the static situation shown in the above diagram, with and without the Moon. Obviously, this ignores both the orbit and rotation of the Earth.

It's a part of the error but not the full problem. The main error is the confusion between gravitational acceleration and tidal acceleration. The gravitational acceleration as calculated in the spreadsheed cancels out when the orbit is included into the calculation (because it is the cause for the orbital motion). This has no effect on the weight on the surface (with "weight" meaning the reading of a scale the person is standing on). The alteration of weight results from the tidal acceleration - the difference between the gravitational acceleration on the surface and of the center of mass. That is not even mentoined in the spreadsheed.

BTW: The calculation "1.62+0.0027=1.6227" reminds me of a joke: In a museum a man tells his friend that the dinosaur skeleton in front of them is 70,000,011 years old. When his friend asked hin how he knows it that exactly he explaines that he was told it is 70 mill. years old when he was there 11 years ago.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Dale, Nugatory, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #34
DrStupid said:
"1.62+0.0027=1.6227" reminds me of a joke:
Sorry, you are not willing to discuss seriously.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes davenn and weirdoguy
  • #35
rajen0201 said:
Sorry, you are not willing to discuss seriously.

... and you're missing the point of the joke, which you could have learned valuable lessons from about significant figures.

Zz.
 
  • #36
rajen0201 said:
As per equation g = GM/R^2, its value must be constant, but here, it is increasing.
This is the equation for a single gravity source. If you have multiple gravity sources, you have to combine their effects.
 
  • #37
ZapperZ said:
valuable lessons from about significant figure.
Note that, first off all, let me know if below is wrong. Gravity affects mass as per N/kg unit or not. If yes, moons gravity acts accordingly for earth. Now, this reduced Earth gravity will reduce man weight on opposite side also.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #38
DrStupid said:
It's a part of the error but not the full problem...

That is not even mentioned in the spreadsheet.
Agreed. I'm just of the opinion that it is ok to do one thing at a time/tackle a problem in layers (if even necessary).
 
  • #39
A.T. said:
This is the equation for a single gravity source. If you have multiple gravity sources, you have to combine their effects.
All other objects in universe works to reduce the gravity of Earth and vice a Versa.
 
  • Haha
Likes davenn
  • #40
rajen0201 said:
Note that, first off all, let me know if below is wrong.
OK, I'm letting you know.

Gravity affects mass as per N/kg unit or not.
This part is correct. Gravity can be expressed as acceleration. F=ma, so a=F/m, which is how you've chosen to express it. I'm not contesting that the moon affects my acceleration when it is overhead vs when it is not. I'm contesting that it affects my weight (outside of the tidal effects discussed).

moons gravity acts accordingly for earth. Now, this reduced Earth gravity will reduce man weight on opposite side also.
No reduction in Earth gravity results. Earth continues to contribute GM/r2.

Weight is a combination of gravity effects from various sources, but also from acceleration effects. Your computation of weight only accounts for the former, not the latter. An astronaut going up in a Saturn-5 weighs maybe 10,000 Newtons, not because gravity changed, but because the acceleration of the Saturn-5 contributes far more than does gravity. You're not taking the acceleration of Earth into account in the weight calculation when computing the weight of this KG mass when the moon is overhead. Do all the calculations in the inertial frame of the barycenter of the Earth/moon system and the weight will come out correctly.
 
  • #41
rajen0201 said:
Note that, first off all, let me know if below is wrong. Gravity affects mass as per N/kg unit or not. If yes, moons gravity acts accordingly for earth. Now, this reduced Earth gravity will reduce man weight on opposite side also.

This is a confusing jumble and it reflects your lack of understanding of vector addition. As I had ASKED you earlier, show me the free-body diagram of the situation that I showed in the diagram. There are two gravitational forces that are pulling on the person, and they act in the SAME direction. So how is the presence of the moon here caused the reduction in the gravitational force acting on that person?

You have a continuing habit of ignoring basic premises that you were asked to show. This is a common pattern in many of your questions, and it gets very frustrating when I am trying to make you realize that your problem goes down to something even more basic and fundamental here.

So please DRAW this FBD and show me why you think what you think. I'm trying to help you figure this out on your own, but I can only lead you to the water. You will have to take that last step and drink it.

If that continues to be ignored, then I no longer wish to waste any more of my time on this one.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
rajen0201 said:
All other objects in universe works to reduce the gravity of Earth and vice a Versa.
This is simply incorrect, and repeating it isn't going to change that.
This thread is closed to new posts by you, and we strongly encourage you to draw the FBD and do teh vector addition recommended in post #41 above
 
  • #43
rajen0201 said:
Gravity affects mass as per N/kg unit or not.

Yes, gravity accelerates bodies, but independent from their mass. It is the mass of the gravity source that matters.

rajen0201 said:
If yes, moons gravity acts accordingly for earth.

Yes, gravity doesn't make exceptions.

rajen0201 said:
Now, this reduced Earth gravity will reduce man weight on opposite side also.

Where does "this reduced Earth gravity" come from? In your spreadsheed you calculated the accelerations of Earth due to the gravity of Moon and vice versa. But this acceleration cannot reduce the gravity acting on a body on Earth or Moon because this body is affected by the gravity as well. With the same distance from the source of gravity it would be accelerated identically.

In order to reduce the weight of the body on Earth or Moon the acceleration needs to be different. As the mass of the the source of gravity is identical for all bodies (obviously) the gravitational acceleration can only be different due to different positions and the position of a person standing on the surface of Earth or Moon actually is different from the position of the center of mass of Earth or Moon.

Now let's do some math:

According to Newton's law of gravitation the gravitational acceleration in the field of a body located in the origin is

##a = - GM\cdot\frac{r}{{\left| r \right|^3 }}##

That's what you calculated in your spreadsheed and what does not change the weight of the body on the surface. The weight of the body is affected by the tital acceleration = the difference of the acceleration of the body and the center of mass:

##\Delta a = a_{Body} - a_{CoM} = - GM\cdot\left( {\frac{{r_{Body} }}{{\left| {r_{Body} } \right|^3 }} - \frac{{r_{CoM} }}{{\left| {r_{CoM} } \right|^3 }}} \right)##

In case of small shperical bodies this can be approximated by

##\Delta a \approx grad\,a \cdot \Delta r = - \frac{GM}{{\left| r \right|^3 }}\cdot\left( {\Delta r - 3 \cdot \frac{{r \cdot \left( {r \cdot \Delta r} \right)}}{{r^2 }}} \right)##

This acceleration obviously depends on the direction of the displacement ##\Delta r## between the body and the center of mass. There are two special cases (which have already been discussed above) - the tidal acceleration on the near and fare sides:

##\Delta F_{||} \approx + 2 \cdot \frac{GM}{{\left| r \right|^3 }}\cdot\Delta r##

and the tidal acceleration at 90°:

##\Delta F_ \bot \approx - \frac{GM}{{\left| r \right|^3 }} \cdot \Delta r##

As you can see they have a different sign. On the near and far side it acts in the direction of the displacement (and therefore reduces the weight) and at 90° it acts against the displacement (and therefore increases the weight).

There is no uniform "reduced Earth gravity".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #44
And the OP has left the building. Thanks everybody for trying to help him.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
Back
Top