I have put together 3 configurations,

the first (config a) depicting gravity's strongest point, I am assuming the answer is "A", but if its not, please explain why.

the second (config b) depicting light of sight, again, I am assuming the answer is "A" (nevermind where the sun is in the image), but if its not, please explain why.

the third (config c) is depicting both of what config a and b did, I am assuming "A" is the correct answer for both.

either way,

if the answers are "A" why is the spacetime curved like such?

if the answers are "B" then why is the line of sight way off?

for example, I wanted to be sure to use a black hole in config c, to show the exaggerated effect on spacetime compared to that of our earth, moon or sun. if the line of sight and/or the point of strongest gravity is "B"

wouldn't that have the black hole pulling from outside the galaxy, let me clarify.

lets imagine there is a planet where the bottom left or right arrow is (in config c), its the same distance from the black hole as earth is, but on a different "plane" for lack of better words.

would it have the same pull from the black hole, and where is that light of sight to the black hole from there?

its hard (for me) to imagine spacetime as both 2-Dimminsional (illustrations) and 3-Dimminsional (actual) at the same time.

I have added in a animated gif of a singularity in a black hole as it is understood (but not proven)

wouldn't that same gravity pull (from all directions, 3D-360 degrees) be how other not just heavy, but all objects apply?

thanks in advance.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by taste
fix

In the first configuration, gravity is strongest on the surface ( not the center ) of the planet, not at some arbitrary mathematical point on an imaginary surface, used to explain General Relativity to noobs.
The same goes for the other two configurations; the 'source' of gravity is the Center of Gravity of the mass distribution doing the gravitating.
And since mass is proportional to volume ( generally ), and falls off with the cube of the radius, gravity generally decreases within the mass distribution, falling to zero at the Center of mass ( see Newton's shell theorem ).

Don't know what your fourth animation is supposed to represent ...

5 hours ago, MigL said:

In the first configuration, gravity is strongest on the surface ( not the center ) of the planet, not at some arbitrary mathematical point on an imaginary surface, used to explain General Relativity to noobs.
The same goes for the other two configurations; the 'source' of gravity is the Center of Gravity of the mass distribution doing the gravitating.
And since mass is proportional to volume ( generally ), and falls off with the cube of the radius, gravity generally decreases within the mass distribution, falling to zero at the Center of mass ( see Newton's shell theorem ).

Don't know what your fourth animation is supposed to represent ...

thank you for response.

this leaves me with some questions, but do not take it the wrong way, I am just thinking out loud.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

gravity is strongest on the surface ( not the center ) of the planet, not at some arbitrary mathematical point on an imaginary surface, used to explain General Relativity to noobs.

define surface please, is it the outer atmosphere, at ground level or somewhere in between?

if gravity is strongest on the surface, why is the heaviest of the elements drawn inward to the center of the body?

5 hours ago, MigL said:

mass is proportional to volume ( generally ), and falls off with the cube of the radius, gravity generally decreases within the mass distribution, falling to zero at the Center of mass

doesn't this contradict the understood physics of a black hole (the 4th image in the OP)

I imagine 3 scenarios

a) a rocky planet with an earth-like atmosphere, a lighter outer crust, and a heavier inner core, much like the earth. 66% of this planets mass is from the core, while the remaining 33% is split between the outer layers and the atmosphere. Its mass is not proportional to its volume. tough,... its not off by much.

b) a fictional gas giant, about a thousand times larger than earth, with a core about 100 times that of earth itself, with a total weight twice that of jupiter. its core is extremely dense and heavy. is the gravitational pull the greatest on the surface of its core or the surface of its atmosphere?

c) a fictional supermassive black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of about 1 lightyear. a heavyweight no doubt, is its mass spread out evenly or is it mostly near the singularity?

wouldn't the center of mass in the black hole be the singularity? or am i understanding that incorrectly

thanks in advance.

55 minutes ago, taste said:

if gravity is strongest on the surface, why is the heaviest of the elements drawn inward to the center of the body?

They aren’t. Chemistry is an important actor here. The core is iron and nickel, but heavier elements are found in the mantle and crust. The heavy elements tend not to be in pure form, and the forms they take are less dense. Dense material will sink, because there’s force pulling them there (using Newtonian description), and can push less dense materials out of the way.

On 6/8/2025 at 2:37 PM, taste said:

define surface please, is it the outer atmosphere, at ground level or somewhere in between?

if gravity is strongest on the surface, why is the heaviest of the elements drawn inward to the center of the body?

All depends on the mass within the radius you are concerned with.
Any mass outside that radius is not a consideration due to Newton's shell theorem ( did you look it up ? ).

For the Earth, this is complicated by the fact that density is not uniform ( as Swansont explained, buoyancy in the 'liquid' layers cause stratification ) and gravity actually increases, at first, with depth, but then starts dropping off eventually reaching no gravity at the center.
This is due to Newton's shell theorem ( did you look it up ? )

Also keep in mind that this is handled quite well by Newtonian gravity; no need for GR.
If you did use GR, you'd have to resort to using those 'arbitrary mathematical imaginary surfaces' ( I forgot to mention dimensionally reduced ) to compound your confusion.

Edited June 10Jun 10 by MigL