Diagram Picture

See attached conceptual visualization in form of diagram picture. It is a way of how I picture gravity with a question below.

Question

Could it be true that the longer structure makeup of object along a line, exerts more gravity than its sides? Example like a ruler or rod; its would exerts gravity more on its top and bottom than its sides because since its structure makeup is longer from top to bottom thus more gravity on these areas (top and bottom)?

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

Diagram Picture

See attached conceptual visualization in form of diagram picture. It is a way of how I picture gravity with a question below.

Question

Could it be true that the longer structure makeup of object along a line, exerts more gravity than its sides? Example like a ruler or rod; its would exerts gravity more on its top and bottom than its sides because since its structure makeup is longer from top to bottom thus more gravity on these areas (top and bottom)?

There may be some truth in what you are showing, but it isn't quite right either.

What do you mean by 'exert gravity' ?

Gravity is a two way process.

One object exerts a gravitational force on another body and the other body responds by exerting a gravitational force on the first body the is equal in magnitude but opposite in direct.

So the Earth pulls on the Moon and the Moon pulls back on the Earth.

It is the same with a ball that you throw up in the air.

The force is the same in both directions.

But since the Earth is so much bigger than the ball the effect of that force is so much smaller on the Earth than the ball and we simply consider the effect of the Earth force on the ball.

Does this help for a start ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

There may be some truth in what you are showing, but it isn't quite right either.

What do you mean by 'exert gravity' ?

Gravity is a two way process.

One object exerts a gravitational force on another body and the other body responds by exerting a gravitational force on the first body the is equal in magnitude but opposite in direct.

So the Earth pulls on the Moon and the Moon pulls back on the Earth.

It is the same with a ball that you throw up in the air.

The force is the same in both directions.

But since the Earth is so much bigger than the ball the effect of that force is so much smaller on the Earth than the ball and we simply consider the effect of the Earth force on the ball.

Does this help for a start ?

"What do you mean by 'exert gravity'?"

As in causing a gravitational pull.

@studiot

"Gravity is a two way process."

I don't think I gave that much thought in past till now.

Is that because of gravitational centre of body inherited in every object thus mutual common of having a tendency to toward centre of body?

"So the Earth pulls on the Moon and the Moon pulls back on the Earth."

Earth and Moon should be technically closely tight together and having a party.. but not so because of motion?

Note: I was just making a joke about Earth and Moon having a party. An attempt at humour.

Just wondering ...

What is a 'one dimensional object' with 'three points and two lines'?

Why are you deliberately trying to confuse yourself with this non-standard interpretation of gravity?
What do you imagine is lacking from the standard treatment of gravity that can be obtained from a high-school level textbook, and which would tell you that gravity always 'acts' from the center of mass point, but geometry/distribution does play a role in the tidal effects.

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Just wondering ...

What is a 'one dimensional object' with 'three points and two lines'?

Why are you deliberately trying to confuse yourself with this non-standard interpretation of gravity?
What do you imagine is lacking from the standard treatment of gravity that can be obtained from a high-school level textbook, and which would tell you that gravity always 'acts' from the center of mass point, but geometry/distribution does play a role in the tidal effects.

The one dimensional object conceptually could be an object that exist in one dimension like an ultra thin and small ruler as example, and three points and two lines are geometry structure. Just for approximation.

It is just that if I can understand gravity in one dimension with one dimensional objects then could apply that understanding across some dimensions like 2D, and 3D - e.g. from bottom to up. I figured if gravity doesn't work in one dimension, then maybe it couldn't work in other dimensions too because of consistence thing.

But to care about gravity from the sides, your 1 dimensional thing has to exist on at least a 2 dimensional plane, right?

You may as well drop the 1 dimensional thing, it's just muddying the waters.

I don't think your idea works.

Consider an object at C, it's attracted to (and vice versa) A and B. That averages out to the mid point - centre of gravity.

Consider an object at D, it's attracted to (and vice versa) A and B. That averages out to the mid point - centre of gravity. D is closer to B than A, but the effects in general still average out. There is nothing about A and B being in a line (according to D) that makes anything extra happen.

(NB: arrows are just for direction. They are not intended to be vectors (length does not indicate strength, or accurate addition).)

The above assumes A and B are of equal mass.

e.g. from a distance, you'd calculate/notice the gravitational effects of Earths Moon as being at its centre of mass. But the Moon is not homogenous, there are lumps of stuff in it (mascons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy) ) that can make the path of things orbiting the Moon a bit wobbly.

Edited Friday at 08:12 PM1 day by pzkpfw
NB

3 hours ago, tylers100 said:

@studiot

"Gravity is a two way process."

I don't think I gave that much thought in past till now.

Is that because of gravitational centre of body inherited in every object thus mutual common of having a tendency to toward centre of body?

"So the Earth pulls on the Moon and the Moon pulls back on the Earth."

Earth and Moon should be technically closely tight together and having a party.. but not so because of motion?

Note: I was just making a joke about Earth and Moon having a party. An attempt at humour.

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

The one dimensional object conceptually could be an object that exist in one dimension like an ultra thin and small ruler as example, and three points and two lines are geometry structure. Just for approximation.

It is just that if I can understand gravity in one dimension with one dimensional objects then could apply that understanding across some dimensions like 2D, and 3D - e.g. from bottom to up. I figured if gravity doesn't work in one dimension, then maybe it couldn't work in other dimensions too because of consistence thing.

Glad I'm getting you the think further.

You are not wrong but not completely right either.

I've been fitting a new front door lock today but I have some more detail in mind for tomorrow, after my next bread baking session.

So look in again tomorow evening.

6 hours ago, tylers100 said:

@studiot

"Gravity is a two way process."

I don't think I gave that much thought in past till now.

Is that because of gravitational centre of body inherited in every object thus mutual common of having a tendency to toward centre of body?

All forces are two-way processes. If A is exerting a force on B, B must exert the same force on A, in the opposite direction

4 hours ago, tylers100 said:

The one dimensional object conceptually could be an object that exist in one dimension like an ultra thin and small ruler as example, and three points and two lines are geometry structure. Just for approximation.

If your masses are point particles, you will only have a gravitational force acting in one dimension. (if they aren’t, but they are spherically symmetric, it will act the same as if they are point masses)

As promised here is further development towards interpreting and correcting your thinking.

As noted gravity is an interaction between two bodies and acts along a line connecting their centres.

(Sorry for the hasty sketches, especially the centres.)

So if you have two bodies of similar size (mass if you understand that), say A and B then A pulls B towards itself and B pulls A towards itself as in Fig2.

Again 2 bodies so if you only have one boy no force is acting ( if we ignore the action of A's own gravity on itself. This is shown in Fig1.
((Once we have done the books on the table we will come back to the action of a bodies own gravity on itself.)

Fig 3 shows what happens if one body is larger than the other, pretty much the same as Fig2.
Note in all these diagrams there are no sideways forces.

In Fig 4 we ask what happens if we introduce a third body C.
Well a second two way force is introduced between A and C as shown. This is quite independent of the gravitational two way force between A and B.
That is gravity is not reduced/changed because we have added C.
There is, however another two way force, between B and C, shown dotted because they both are smaller than A

This brings us to a second vital observation.

It is impossible to 'shield' a body from the gravitational attraction of another body.

So even if C was placed between A and B it would still make no difference to the forces between A and B.

As shown in Fig 4 the A C force is sideways to the AB force.

Moving on to Fig 5 A is now shown a so much bigger than B we can only see tiny portion of A and B looks like a dot.

This is the case with (ordinary) objects on Earth.

In thse circumstances we ignore the pull of B on A and only consider the pull of A on B so gravity is now considered as a one way force or single force.

Because of this the next figures will be turned the 'right way up' so that gravity is only one downward force.

So Fig6 shows a book sitting on a table.

The one way downward force of gravity acts on the book.
So the book presses down on what is underneath it that is the table. We call this force the weight of the book.
The table does not stop this as already stated.
Gravity also acts on the table but we are only interested in the book.

If, as in Fig7 we place a second book on top of the first book this presses down on the first book with its weight.
Added together both books now press down on the table with their combined weight.

Note that only vertical forces are involved, in line with out original statement of acting along a line.

So I am now going to ask you to think about a stack of several books on the table as in fig 8.
I ask because it is beginning to look a bit like some of you figures, but without the sideways forces.

I suspect you have seen something about the pressure at the bottom of the ocean or atmouspheric pressure, where there are sideways forces.
So next time we will develop the stack of books model towars this.

Maybe a brief tutorial on vector analysis would help @tylers100 if he is lacking in that area.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Maybe a brief tutorial on vector analysis would help @tylers100 if he is lacking in that area.

If I remember previous threads correctly thry are a bit junior for vector analysis