Notices
Results 1 to 83 of 83

Thread: Does global pull of a body vary with distance?

  1. #1 Does global pull of a body vary with distance? 
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    They say we can consider a massive body as if all mass is located at the centre, is it an approximation and that is true only at infinite distance ?
    At a superficial inspection there are strong arguments to think that the pull on the surface must be somewhat different from the pull on the moon.
    Is there any paper describing this?
    Thanks


    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post

    At a superficial inspection there are strong arguments to think that the pull on the surface must be somewhat different from the pull on the moon.
    What gives you this idea?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    What tells you that if you are standing at the North pole the sum of the pull of the single masses must level out exactly at the average value?
    Points nearer than the arctic are giving you almost no radial pull, points at the equator .35 , at South pole .25 , Australia , South america .30.
    why should this babel of figures compensate each other exactly?
    But even at a distance R from the surface the global pull cannot be the same on the Sun .
    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    They say we can consider a massive body as if all mass is located at the centre.
    Is it exacly so, or is it an approximation and that is true only at infinite distance ?
    I understand this to be true under particular circumstances but is not fully general. A counterexample is to consider a spherical shell and a point inside that shell. The force at that point is zero rather than as if all the mass is at the centre.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    What tells you that if you are standing at the North pole the sum of the pull of the single masses must level out exactly at the average value?
    Points nearer than the arctic are giving you almost no radial pull, points at the equator .35 , at South pole .25 , Australia , South america .30.
    1. The Earth is not a sphere, it is a geoid you should have learned that.
    2. The Earth density is not constant, this affects the attraction force.
    3. The Earth rotates, so there is centrifugal force being subtracted from the attractive force. The numbers that you are citing are adjusted for the effects of centrifugal force. You should have learned that as well, they teach it in high school.

    But even at a distance R from the surface the global pull cannot be the same on the Sun
    This is not a meaningful sentence, it is just nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    As usual, it takes you some time to focus the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I understand this to be true under particular circumstances but is not fully general..
    It is surely true at infinite distance, and of course we are talking of a perfect sphere.
    It should be relatively simple to determine if the globall pull increases or diminishes when the object gets nearer to the surface.
    My (un)educated guess is that at 10 m above the surface the pull is even smaller than 90%.
    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid
    My (un)educated guess is that at 10 m abobe the surface the pull is even smaller than 90%.
    Uneducated. More like ignorant. Don't let that stop u from spamming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    More like ignorant
    Gratuitous, as usual.
    Show your own science and wisdom, some time. If you have nothing positive, constructive to say, why do you answer my threads?
    btw,
    we are still waiting for your educated illuminated version of the shooting on the motorway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    More like ignorant
    Gratuitous, as usual.
    Not at all, I point out your mistakes, you should try to learn rather than continue to pile more mistakes on top of your previous mistakes.


    If you have nothing positive, constructive to say, why do you answer my threads?
    Your threads are full of glaring mistakes, I point them out in the hope that you'll learn from them. You should stop spamming, trying to look knowledgeable and start studying in earnest.

    we are still waiting for your educated illuminated version of the shooting on the motorway.
    It is a simple problem of kinematics. You should try solving it on your own sometimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    I point out your mistakes..
    Your threads are full of glaring mistakes, I point them out...
    You should try solving it on your own sometimes.
    You are repetitive and ineffective. It is useless to denigrate mistakes if you do not give the correction.
    You never give (intelligent) solutions. Janus gave one, I foretold it. If I , like all other members, could solve all problems by myself, nobody would post in this forum
    if you do have a solution, put it forward.( first try to understand the problem I posed "does the pull vary with distance?")

    If you have no positive contribution, please abstain!
    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    "does the pull vary with distance?"
    ~ and the answer, yes.. is obvious because the greater distance you are from the mass.
    The lesser will be it's space distortion factor ( gravity ). Try this as a mental exercise; 'If you were to tunnel into the planet would the gravity force measured be less as you descended' ?.. and yes.. because the all the mass is no longer below you..
    Why are you asking ? I think you are aware of the mechanics of gravity.. You know that if we get far enough away the gravity force diminishes..
    ~ Some of the stars we observe are thousands of times larger than our sun. If the gravity did not diminish with distance we would be pulled into space.. The whole question is silly.. What is it you are asking ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The whole question is silly.. What is it you are asking ?
    You should read more carefully, astromark,
    of course gravity diminishes with the square of the distance, I think it is silly after so many posts to think that that is the question.
    The issue here is if at different distances we can consider/calculate the pull as if it all the mass were concentrated in the centre.
    Got it now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    @ Whizkid.
    Are you trying to consider the effect of gravity as if you were on the outside of a thin shell globe?
    It is the only way I can make sense of your posts.
    KJW gives you a strong hint with the point interior to the sphere.
    However the gravitational field inside a hollow sphere sums to zero at all internal points because the force of gravity cancels when you sum up the vectors. It does not matter where the location inside the hollow sphere is, the result you see is always a flat gravitaional field.

    The case for what happens when outside of a thin shell is only slightly more complex.
    You can find a treatment of this on Wikipedia.
    Shell theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by dan hunter; July 20th, 2014 at 08:26 AM. Reason: correcting spelling typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    I point out your mistakes, y
    Your threads are full of glaring mistakes, I point them out
    You should try solving it on your own sometimes.
    You are repetitive and ineffective. It is useless to denigrate mistakes if you do not give the correction.
    I give corrections. The point is that you persist in making mistakes.

    You never give (intelligent) solutions. Janus gave one, I foretold it. If I , like all other members, could solve all problems by myself, nobody would post in this forum.
    If you were less impertinent , you would get more help.


    Now, please stop spamming/trolling. I do not need your jeers. I posed a simple question:
    The point is that you do not "post simple questions". you embelish them with your crank, personal ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    The issue here is if at different distances we can consider/calculate the pull as if it all the mass were concentrated in the centre.
    Got it now?
    Yes, it does. There is a simple theorem that proves that. It requires knowing calculus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    The issue here is if at different distances we can consider/calculate the pull as if it all the mass were concentrated in the centre.
    Whizkid, I think I understand your question.

    You want to know if the standard gravitation pull equation that uses the inverse square of the distances between the centroids of the two bodies produces the same value as computing of the gravitational pull by integrating the gravitation between every particle in both bodies.

    The answer is that the two methods produce slightly different values.

    Simply consider the sum of the gravitational pull of two masses on another mass at an average distance, r. The standard gravitational equation will use 2/r, but the integration of the separate values will use 1/(r–dr) and 1/(r+dr). However, 2/r does not equal 1/(r–dr) + 1/(r+dr) unless dr=0.

    Let's use actual numbers. r=100 and dr=1. The standard equation will use 2/r, which is 2/100, which equals 2/10,000, which is 0.0002. The integration will use 1/99 + 1/101 which equals 0.0001020304... + 0.0000980296..., which is 0.00020006001... .

    More simply 1/99 + 1/101 does not equal 1/100 + 1/100.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post

    You want to know if the standard gravitation pull equation that uses the inverse square of the distances between the centroids of the two bodies produces the same value as computing of the gravitational pull by integrating the gravitation between every particle in both bodies.
    The force exerted on a test probe by two spheres is simply the (vector) resultant of the two forces. You need to apply superposition of effects. This is not what "whizkid" appears to be doing/asking.

    Simply consider the sum of the gravitational pull of two masses on another mass at an average distance, r. The standard gravitational equation will use 2/r,
    The above is true only if the test probe is located on the line connecting the centers of the two spheres, at equal distance (r) from their respective centers. It is not true in the general case, for an arbitrary position of the test probe. In addition, the simple composition of vectors tells you that the resultant is 0, not 2/r.


    but the integration of the separate values will use 1/(r–dr) and 1/(r+dr). However, 2/r does not equal 1/(r–dr) + 1/(r+dr) unless dr=0.


    If the test probe is off center by dr, the resultant force is 1/(r–dr) - 1/(r+dr), not 1/(r–dr) + 1/(r+dr).
    In the general case:where

    are the masses of the two attractive bodies
    is the mass of the probe
    are the vectors of position of the test probe wrt the two attractive masses
    Last edited by Howard Roark; July 20th, 2014 at 11:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    It can also be solved using Gauss's flux theorem for gravity
    Gauss's law for gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    It can also be solved using Gauss's flux theorem for gravity
    Gauss's law for gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    By his own admission, "whizkid" cannot follow the math in the derivation. Nor can he seem to agree with the theorem applications.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The whole question is silly.. What is it you are asking ?
    You should read more carefully, astromark,
    of course gravity diminishes with the square of the distance, I think it is silly after so many posts to think that that is the question.
    The issue here is if at different distances we can consider/calculate the pull as if it all the mass were concentrated in the centre.
    Got it now?
    Gauss theorem (if you can follow the math), teaches you that you are questioning an issue that has been long settled. For mainstream science, at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    The answer is that the two methods produce slightly different values.
    Let's use actual numbers. r=100 and dr=1. The standard equation will use 2/r, which is 2/100, which equals 2/10,000, which is 0.0002. The integration will use 1/99 + 1/101 which equals 0.0001020304... + 0.0000980296..., which is 0.00020006001... .
    .
    Hi jrmonroe, at last one intelligent post by an intelligent member.
    I made that example in my post #7 and I got to the same conclusions and I observed that at a great distance differences are negligible expecially as the points on the side of the sphere make an angle near to 0 with the line joining the two centers of mass.

    My question was if those different values differ a lot when distance gets shorter , expecially when the extreme points of the sphere make an angle in the excess of 45. I made the example of a body 100 m above the NorthPole . If that difference can reach 10% of the value, as I ventured with my wild guess.

    I suppose that many of you have the capacity of simulating on the computer program the interaction of a slice of a sphere , a semicircle, with a point A lying near one end of the diameter BA.

    Thanks jr monroe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    The answer is that the two methods produce slightly different values.
    Let's use actual numbers. r=100 and dr=1. The standard equation will use 2/r, which is 2/100, which equals 2/10,000, which is 0.0002. The integration will use 1/99 + 1/101 which equals 0.0001020304... + 0.0000980296..., which is 0.00020006001... .
    .
    Hi jrmonroe, at last one intelligent post by an intelligent member.
    I made that example in my post #7 and I got to the same conclusions and I observed that at a great distance differences are negligible expecially as the points on the side of the sphere make an angle near to 0 with the line joining the two centers of mass.

    My question was if those different values differ a lot when distance gets shorter , expecially when the extreme points of the sphere make an angle in the excess of 45. I made the example of a body 100 m above the NorthPole . If that difference can reach 10% of the value, as I ventured with my wild guess.

    I suppose that many of you have the capacity of simulating on the computer program the interaction of a slice of a sphere , a semicircle, with a point A lying near one end of the diameter BA.

    Thanks jr monroe
    One ignorant reinforcing the errors of another ignorant.....Gauss must be turning in his grave.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; July 20th, 2014 at 02:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    They say we can consider a massive body as if all mass is located at the centre.
    Is it exactly so, or is it an approximation and that is true only at infinite distance?
    I addressed whizkid's first question on the assumption that the entirety of a body's mass is located at the center (and apparently of zero volume). And my answer is that it's an approximation and is only true/exact at an infinite distance. At infinite distance, dr/r 0, which is the assumption he mentioned, and thus, 1/(rdr) + 1/(r+dr) → 2/r.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    They say we can consider a massive body as if all mass is located at the centre.
    Is it exactly so, or is it an approximation and that is true only at infinite distance?
    I addressed whizkid's first question on the assumption that the entirety of a body's mass is located at the center (and apparently of zero volume). And my answer is that it's an approximation and is only true/exact at an infinite distance. At infinite distance, dr/r 0, which is the assumption he mentioned, and thus, 1/(r–dr) + 1/(r+dr) → 2/r.
    Initially I thought that you just made an honest mistake but I see that you are persisting in posting crank stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    The whole question is silly.. What is it you are asking ?
    You should read more carefully, astromark,
    of course gravity diminishes with the square of the distance, I think it is silly after so many posts to think that that is the question.
    The issue here is if at different distances we can consider/calculate the pull as if it all the mass were concentrated in the centre.
    Got it now?
    ~ Your rudeness and arrogance are ugly and grotesque.. You do not seem to understand simple physics.. I do.
    Read what has been said by all of the contributors here.. we are trying to help.. Be less abusive and blunt.. and say what you mean..
    I am not a clairvoyant.. If you do not want a discussion.. don't come here. Do you understand 'forum.' I think it is you that did not read or understand my response.. as it was intended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Your rudeness and arrogance are ugly and grotesque.. You do not seem to understand simple physics.. I do.
    Read what has been said by all of the contributors here.. we are trying to help.. Be less abusive and blunt.. and say what you mean..
    I am not a clairvoyant.. If you do not want a discussion.. don't come here. Do you understand 'forum.' I think it is you that did not read or understand my response.. as it was intended.
    Astromark, you jumped in with "The whole question is silly" in your first reply to this thread, yet you had completely missed the point. whizkid was merely pointing that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I would never post crank stuff. Maybe I made a mistake, but I don't think so.

    What's wrong with my math? Please address any error in my math. I compare two units of mass at distance r to the two units of mass, one at distance rdr and the other r+dr. Is my math wrong? True, I don't show the entire equation for the gravitational pull because I left out the common parts.

    Two units of mass at distance r contribute 2/r to the gravitational pull equation.

    Two units of mass, one at distance rdr and the other r+dr contribute 1/(rdr) and 1/(r+dr), respectfully.

    As an example, with r=100 and dr=1, then

    2/r = 2/100 = 2/10,000 = 0.0002

    And then

    1/(rdr) = 1/(1001) = 1/(99) = 1/9,801 = 0.00010203040506070809...

    and

    1/(r+dr) = 1/(100+1) = 1/(101) = 1/10,201 = 0.000098029604940692089...

    Summing results in 0.00020006001000140018...

    This does not equal 0.0002 computed from the assumption model.

    Thus, the equation assuming all mass at the center is not equal to the more accurate integration by parts. The all-mass-at-center assumption only holds true when r equals infinity because then dr/r=0. and, in my simple example, 2/r equals 1/(rdr) + 1/(r+dr) because dr/r=0 and dr = r0 = 0, and so rdr = r and r+dr = r.

    This shows whizkid's point-of-view to be correct.

    Please address my math. Where did I go wrong?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I would never post crank stuff. Maybe I made a mistake, but I don't think so.

    What's wrong with my math? Please address any error in my math. I compare two units of mass at distance r to the two units of mass, one at distance r–dr and the other r+dr. Is my math wrong? True, I don't show the entire equation for the gravitational pull because I left out the common parts.

    Two units of mass at distance r contribute 2/r to the gravitational pull equation.
    No, they don't, I already explained what's wrong with your math in post 18.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    So, are you saying that gravitational forces are not additive?

    I think you misread my post. Please re-read, there is no "probe".

    Simply put, two masses at a distance r will exert a non-zero gravitational force on another mass.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    So, are you saying that gravitational forces are not additive?
    No, what I am saying is that you are adding the forces incorrectly. They add like vectors, you are erroneously adding them like scalars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I'm adding like scalar quantities because I simplified the problem to one dimension. And my example does not have a probe.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I would never post crank stuff. Maybe I made a mistake, but I don't think so.

    What's wrong with my math? Please address any error in my math.
    OP question:
    - if we consider gravitational masses in a perfect sphere A or we condider them all at the center of the sphere O, do we get the same pull on an object B at distance D from the center?... the answers so far have been no, there is a tiny +difference .
    If you do not agree, disprove it
    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Just read the Wikipedia article on the shell theorem. Newton solved this problem hundreds of years ago. Why continue to debate the issue?
    In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.
    Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and said that:

    1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
    2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    if we consider gravitational masses at their real place in a perfect sphere A or we condider them all at the center of the sphere, do we get the same pull of an object B at distance D from the center? the answers so far have been no, there is a tiny +difference . If you do not agree, disprove it
    The gravitational field external to a spherical mass is identical to the gravitational field that would be produced if all the mass were concentrated at the centre. The proof is in the shell theorem article.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Just read the Wikipedia article on the shell theorem.

    1. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
    Thanks Harold, has anyone ever found a result by actual integration? integrating a semicircle might suffice, wouldn't it?

    Does that apply also to the case when the object is on the shell?

    Then, in the case of a solid ball :

    " A primitive function to the integrand is


    and ...."

    the function becomes just s
    does that not influence the result?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I'm adding like scalar quantities because I simplified the problem to one dimension.
    When you have only one dimension you need to subtract the scalars. You are adding them. A sign of being a crank is persisting even after you have been shown your errors.

    And my example does not have a probe.
    The mass acted by the two gravitational bodies is also called a "test probe".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Just read the Wikipedia article on the shell theorem.

    1. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
    Thanks Harold, has anyone ever found a result by actual integration?
    What do you think? That Gauss was just an ignorant, who did not know what he was doing? How arrogant (and ignorant) can you prove to be?



    integrating a semicircle might suffice, wouldn't it?
    No, it doesn't. You obviously do not understand the process, why don't you give up the wild ass guesses and LEARN, for a change?


    Does that apply also to the case when the object is on the shell?
    Yes, read the darn thing.

    Then, in the case of a solid ball :

    " A primitive function to the integrand is


    and ...."

    the function becomes just s
    does that not influence the result?

    I wrote that wiki entry. Now, stay away from the keyboard for a while and go take a calculus class. Stop posting until after you learn the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    I wrote that wiki entry.
    Did you make that animation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    I wrote that wiki entry.
    Did you make that animation?
    No, I wrote the math. You would be smart if you started learning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Okay Harold, I give up. I wasn't being a crank. You see my math. Maybe my error was oversimplifying the problem to a single dimension. My example of two bodies each with a mass of 1 doesn't come under Newton's proof, but was a lousy simplification of it.

    Xyzt, I probably didn't make my example clear enough, but I think my math as-is is correct, although it's a lousy oversimplification of what whizkid needed, and I misdirected him.

    A body with a unitless mass of 2 at a distance r does contribute a gravitational pull of 2/r. If the probe is measuring the gravitational force, then it is at the distance r from the body with a unitless mass of 2. In comparison, it's also at the same distance (r) from a point from which one body with a mass of 1 is dr closer to the probe and the second body with a mass of 1 is dr farther from the probe. Do you see my lousily oversimplified model?

    But, yes, Gauss would roll over in his grave because I derived his so-called "Least Squares" Method without squaring or minimizing anything. In fact, squaring the errors eliminates their signs and forces the method to minimize their summation. With the errors left alone with their signs intact, their signs work as they should, and you can derive what also turns out to be the LSM. But that's another story (and thread).

    Whizkid, stop banging your head against the wall and try this proof.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    What gives you this idea?
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    1. The Earth is not a sphere, it is a geoid you should have learned that.
    2. The Earth density is not constant, this affects the attraction force.
    3. The Earth rotates, so there is centrifugal force being subtracted from the attractive force. The numbers that you are citing are adjusted for the effects of centrifugal force. You should have learned that as well, they teach it in high school.
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Not at all, I point out your mistakes, you should try to learn rather than continue to pile more mistakes on top of your previous mistakes.
    It is a simple problem of kinematics. You should try solving it on your own sometimes.
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    I wrote that wiki entry.
    That's all the wisdom you produced, smartass.

    You claim you wrote the wiki article and never quoted it
    We had to wait 14 posts for dan hunter 34 for Harold and 41 for jrmonroe (and his great proof) to learn something.

    You are just a rude bully, and a disgrace to this excellent forum.
    Last edited by whizkid; July 21st, 2014 at 10:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post

    Xyzt, I probably didn't make my example clear enough, but I think my math as-is is correct, although it's a lousy oversimplification of what whizkid needed, and I misdirected him.

    A body with a unitless mass of 2 at a distance r does contribute a gravitational pull of 2/r. If the probe is measuring the gravitational force, then it is at the distance r from the body with a unitless mass of 2. In comparison, it's also at the same distance (r) from a point from which one body with a mass of 1 is dr closer to the probe and the second body with a mass of 1 is dr farther from the probe. Do you see my lousily oversimplified model?
    Problem is that you wrote the force as . The correct expression is . This is the third time I point out your error to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post

    Whizkid, stop banging your head against the wall and try this proof.
    Thanks for the link, it is a clear article.

    If I got it right the shell theorem says that if an object A is near the surface of a hollow sphere itgets the same pull it would get if the whole mass where concentrated at its center O.
    I am not banging my head on the wall: before posting I made some rough calculation and that seems far from truth:
    suppose we have a perfect hollow sphere of radius R = 10 and thickness 1, it has 1256.6 cubes, of mass 1,
    suppose G = 100, if all mass were at O (radius = 0.0000...1), A would experience a force of 1256.6.
    Are you saying that A gets the same pull from a sphere of radius = 10?

    Now, tell me one more thing, if we patiently calculate the pull given by each individual cube of unit mass and sum them up, do we get a reasonable approximation? how bad can we get? 5%, 10% or more?

    Thanks for your kindness.
    Last edited by whizkid; July 26th, 2014 at 08:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post

    Whizkid, stop banging your head against the wall and try this proof.
    Thanks for the link, it is a clear article.
    I hope you can spare some time and have the patience to explain simply what escapes me.

    If I got it right the shell theorem says that if an object A is near the surface of a hollow homogeneous sphere gets the same pull it would get if the whole mass where concentrated at its center O.
    Not hollow. It is a ball. This means full, like the Earth , for example. But the shell theorem works for any value of the inner radius.

    If so, I am not banging my head on the wall, but before posting I made some rough calculation and that seems very far from truth.
    Once more:

    suppose we have a perfect hollow sphere of radius R = 10 and thickness 1, it has 1256.6 cubes of volume 1 and mass 1 perfectly distributed.
    suppose now G = 100, if all mass were at O, A would experience a force of 1256.6.
    Are you saying that A gets the same pull from a sphere of radius= 10?
    That is what the shell theorem teaches you.

    Now tell me one more thing, if we patiently calculate the pull given by each individual cube of unit mass and sum them up, do we get a reasonable approximation? how bad can we get? 5%, 10% or more?
    If you do it right, you get an exact match. No "approximation". This is what the shell theorem teaches you. You will need to learn calculus (integration) in order to understand how it works.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; July 21st, 2014 at 11:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    A solid sphere can be thought of as an infinite number of nested hollow balls. So it works for a solid sphere as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Xyzt, okay, different scenario.

    Let's say a probe is at the origin of a single dimension and there's objects (of unitless masses of 1) at coordinates a and b, both positive numbers. Do they contribute to the gravitational pull on the probe as 1/a and 1/b, and so, their combined pull is 1/a + 1/b? Because that's what I'm trying to say. In other words, a = r – dr and b = r + dr. I just don't understand the subtraction. I think now you'll see why I've been so insistent.

    Whizkid, xyzt can answer these questions better than I can.

    Harold, so if I went down into the Earth to a radius of r from the center, I could pretty much ignore the "shell" above radius r, which gives me zero grav pull, and just compute the grav pull from the "sphere" of radius r beneath me?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,609
    Xyzt knows his stuff, whizkid just can't bear being corrected...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Xyzt knows his stuff, whizkid just can't bear being corrected...
    He doesn't know alphabetical order.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,609
    Think about it 3 dimensions of space (often denominated as x,y and z) and one of time (t)...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Xyzt, okay, different scenario.

    Let's say a probe is at the origin of a single dimension and there's objects (of unitless masses of 1) at coordinates a and b, both positive numbers. Do they contribute to the gravitational pull on the probe as 1/a and 1/b, and so, their combined pull is 1/a + 1/b?
    Only IF they are at the same side of the test probe and IF they occupied the same exact position. Which is physically impossible. As I explained to you, repeatedly (this is going to be the fourth time), if the test probe is between the two attractive masses, then the resultant is 1/a - 1/b. Not 1/a + 1/b.

    Because that's what I'm trying to say. In other words, a = r – dr and b = r + dr. I just don't understand the subtraction. I think now you'll see why I've been so insistent.
    You get r-dr and r+dr in the case the test probe is between the attractive masses. In this case you also get the resultant force as . Do you finally understand your mistakes?

    Whizkid
    , xyzt can answer these questions better than I can.
    True.

    Harold
    , so if I went down into the Earth to a radius of r from the center, I could pretty much ignore the "shell" above radius r, which gives me zero grav pull, and just compute the grav pull from the "sphere" of radius r beneath me?
    Also true.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; July 21st, 2014 at 03:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Think about it 3 dimensions of space (often denominated as x,y and z) and one of time (t)...
    yep :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Xyzt knows his stuff, whizkid just can't bear being corrected...
    So, he makes new mistakes, in order to cover up his earlier mistakes....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,609
    I stopped trying to help him after he forayed into QM, he kept trying to apply classical physics after being repeatedly told it didn't work in the case he was considering and said I was "arrogant" for pointing out his misconceptions
    :shrug: he seems to be carrying on in the same vein here. Even Strange, one of the most patient posters on the forum gave up trying to educate him as he has the belief anything he can't understand (which seems to include anything involving calculus) can't be correct...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I stopped trying to help him after he forayed into QM, he kept trying to apply classical physics after being repeatedly told it didn't work in the case he was considering and said I was "arrogant" for pointing out his misconceptions
    :shrug: he seems to be carrying on in the same vein here. Even Strange, one of the most patient posters on the forum gave up trying to educate him as he has the belief anything he can't understand (which seems to include anything involving calculus) can't be correct...
    This is a syndrome of a type of mental illness, I can't remember how it is called, when one insists on debating subjects that are way out of the person's competence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Xyzt, okay, different scenario.

    Let's say a probe is at the origin of a single dimension and there's objects (of unitless masses of 1) at coordinates a and b, both positive numbers. Do they contribute to the gravitational pull on the probe as 1/a and 1/b, and so, their combined pull is 1/a + 1/b? Because that's what I'm trying to say. In other words, a = r – dr and b = r + dr. I just don't understand the subtraction. I think now you'll see why I've been so insistent.

    Whizkid, xyzt can answer these questions better than I can.

    Harold, so if I went down into the Earth to a radius of r from the center, I could pretty much ignore the "shell" above radius r, which gives me zero grav pull, and just compute the grav pull from the "sphere" of radius r beneath me?
    Harold could answer better, but yes.
    You would not feel any gravitional attraction to the shell you were inside of.
    You would still feel the weight of the ground above you because it would still be responding to the gravity beneath you, but you would not be feeeling any gravitaional attraction to it.

    Bizarre, huh.
    It took me a few times to get through this too. The idea that it did not matter how close you were to the inside wall of the shell was totally counterintuitive to my mind.
    Last edited by dan hunter; July 21st, 2014 at 04:37 PM. Reason: spelling, typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Xyzt, I understand you; you are correct. In my first example, the "probe" (for lack of a better word) was r–dr from the closer mass and r+dr from the farther mass, and both were on the same side of the probe.

    So xyzt, let me present you a situation, and you provide the math — I will refrain from doing so.

    Two objects, each with a unitless mass of 1 exist along the same straight line from a probe, one behind the other.
    One object is at a unitless distance of 10, the other is at 9.
    What m/r value does each mass alone contribute to the grav pull on the probe?
    What do they contribute combined?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Xyzt, I understand you; you are correct. In my first example, the "probe" (for lack of a better word) was r–dr from the closer mass and r+dr from the farther mass, and both were on the same side of the probe.
    Well, if you do this, your exercise is devoid of any meaning in demonstrating anything of any interest. Why are you even choosing the distances to be ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post

    [color=red]Thus, the equation assuming all mass at the center is not equal to the more accurate integration by parts.[/coloe] The all-mass-at-center assumption only holds true when r equals infinity because then dr/r=0. and, in my simple example, 2/r equals 1/(r–dr) + 1/(r+dr) because dr/r=0 and dr = r0 = 0, and so r–dr = r and r+dr = r.
    Ahh, I see what you are trying to prove. It falls into the category "not even wrong".
    The redlined sentence is patently false, the shel theorem produces an EXACT answer. So, you are just reinforcing "whizkid"'s earlier error.



    This shows whizkid's point-of-view to be correct.
    Nope, it is just an example of GiGo. You put garbage in, you got garbage out. You are just reinforcing whizkid's error.


    Please address my math. Where did I go wrong?
    Your "counter-example" is false. You do not understand how the integration is executed in the shell theorem. Do you know integral calculus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Your rudeness and arrogance are ugly and grotesque.. You do not seem to understand simple physics.. I do.
    Read what has been said by all of the contributors here.. we are trying to help.. Be less abusive and blunt.. and say what you mean..
    I am not a clairvoyant.. If you do not want a discussion.. don't come here. Do you understand 'forum.' I think it is you that did not read or understand my response.. as it was intended.
    Astromark, you jumped in with "The whole question is silly" in your first reply to this thread, yet you had completely missed the point. whizkid was merely pointing that out.
    ~~~ Oops and YES, yes, yes... I should not come into a running conversation when I should have been sleeping.. " I am sorry..and I did get that upside down..I was wrong.." consider it withdrawn..
    ~ but there is something about the manor of that contributor that prompted my error.. Oh well.. It leaves me sorry and wrong..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Yes, I was trying to compare the grav pull of a body of mass 2 at distance r to two bodies of mass 1 at distances rdr and r+dr., where dr<<r, and all on the same straight line as the probe.

    So, maybe you can explain the grav pull in my system of two bodies of mass 1 at distances rdr. I'm all ears.

    Yes, I know integral calculus, but I was unaware of the shell theorem until someone mentioned it here.

    Aha, I see from my journal entries that I last studied astrophysics in 1686, and Newton published his Shell Theorem in 1687. Well, that explains it. jk
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Yes, I was trying to compare the grav pull of a body of mass 2 at distance r to two bodies of mass 1 at distances r–dr and r+dr., where dr<<r, and all on the same straight line as the probe.

    So, maybe you can explain the grav pull in my system of two bodies of mass 1 at distances rdr. I'm all ears.

    Yes, I know integral calculus, but I was unaware of the shell theorem until someone mentioned it here.

    Aha, I see from my journal entries that I last studied astrophysics in 1686, and Newton published his Shell Theorem in 1687. Well, that explains it. —jk
    The problem with your "counter-example" is that it doesn't really prove your point. the Shell Theorem is exact, contrary to your attempt at proving that it is just an approximation.
    I trace your failure to two things:

    1. You used a unidimensional example but the integration in the Shel Theorem is a volume integral (three dimensional)

    2. You used scalar addition of forces (due to the error in judgement at point 1). But the Shell Theorem relies on vector addition of forces.

    The two errors taken together render your attempt as a failure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I stopped trying to help him.
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    This is a syndrome of a type of mental illness,.
    You keep insulting, you have a few supporters, it seems.
    It would be wiser to follow PhD's example, just give me a break.
    I begged you to abstain answering my threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I stopped trying to help him.
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    This is a syndrome of a type of mental illness,.
    You keep insulting, you have a few supporters, it seems.
    It would be wiser to follow PhD's example, just give me a break.
    I begged you to abstain answering my threads.
    If you stop posting crank stuff, I'll stop answering. As long as you continue posting crank stuff, I'll debunk it. This is supposed to be a science forum, there is no room for your fringe ideas. It is that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    A solid sphere can be thought of as an infinite number of nested hollow balls. So it works for a solid sphere as well.
    Hi Harold, thanks for your attention. So, the theorem does not refer to a hollow shell, but can we agree that if we consider A on a hollow shell, the pull P_10 is about half the pull A would get if all mass were at O (P_0):
    P_10/P_0 = 0.5 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    .. if we patiently calculate the pull given by each individual cube of unit mass and sum them up, do we get a reasonable approximation?
    If you do it right, you get an exact match. No "approximation". .
    I have patiently summed up all the individual cubes of the shell, and I got P_10 < 1
    Last edited by whizkid; July 30th, 2014 at 11:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    A solid sphere can be thought of as an infinite number of nested hollow balls. So it works for a solid sphere as well.
    - Do you agree that if we consider A on a hollow shell, the pull P_10 is about half the pull A would get if all mass were at O P_O P_10/P_O = 0.5?
    - If the theorem refers to a solid ball, does it take into account that for each of the 10 shell the distance from A is different?
    - As you go deeper into the shells the ratio P_x/P_O increases and reaches 1 only at the center, where distance is near infinite.
    Now if you sum up all the pulls from .5 to 1, how can you ever get an average of 1 as a final result?
    easy, you need to learn how to do integrals. Until you learn, you will continue to post nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Yes xyzt, I failed.

    I oversimplified. I performed the summation of the least number of parts along a single dimension in an attempt to give the simplest explanation to someone who seemed to need an easily digestible answer.

    I envisioned a sphere cut in two perpendicular to the axis that ran from the sphere's center to the probe.

    I invented my own simplistic shell theorem, not knowing that Newton's Shell Theorem already existed.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Yes xyzt, I failed.
    Nice to admit to error, this is a good step.


    I oversimplified. I performed the summation of the least number of parts along a single dimension in an attempt to give the simplest explanation to someone who seemed to need an easily digestible answer.

    I envisioned a sphere cut in two perpendicular to the axis that ran from the sphere's center to the probe.

    I invented my own simplistic shell theorem, not knowing that Newton's Shell Theorem already existed.
    I understand all that. The problem is that your conclusion was wrong, the Shell Theorem gives an exact answer, not an approximate one, as in whizkid's fringe misconception (he still clings to it). So, you inadvertently supported a crank. Now that you know about the Shell Theorem do you still think that it works only for infinite distance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    So, the theorem does not refer to a hollow shell, but
    - can we agree that if we consider A on a hollow shell (post #44, r = 10) , the pull P_10 is about half the pull A would get if all mass were at O (P_O):
    P
    _10/P_O = 0.5?
    (I have patiently summed up all the individual cubes of the shell
    No. The shell theorem says it is the same as if all mass is concentrated at the center, not half. Show us how you summed up the individual cubes., and perhaps we can see where you are going wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Show us how you summed up the individual cubes., and perhaps we can see where you are going wrong.
    Thanks Harold,
    as per post #44, A is standing at the Northpole, and southpole B is 20 units away. All points P on a circle give same pull to A, (which is 100/x^2 *cos phi), but circles near the equator E have more mass.
    The angle phi is at A (PAB) and AP = x = cos phi*20, so the net pull by P is (100/20 = ) 5/x

    In the Southern hemisphere pull vary from .3535 (at E) to .25 at B,
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...+from+0+to+20+
    taking the gratest value far all (.35*628 = 222)
    In the Northern hemisphere pulls vary from .35 at E to 4 at A. If the average of this hemisphere is less than 1.645 (400pi-222)/200pi = 1.646, then the global pull is less than 1

    Is there anything wrong in this procedure?
    Thanks again
    Last edited by whizkid; July 26th, 2014 at 11:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    As per post 44, A is standing at the Northpole and the southpole B is 20 units away. All points P on a circle give the same pull to A, which is 100/x^2 *cos phi
    I guess you mean that the pull is (100/x^2) cos phi, where x is the straight line distance from A to the mass, and phi is the angle PAB. I agree with that.
    , but circles near the equator E have more mass than the others.
    The angle phi is at A (PAB) and x = cos phi*20 , so the net pull by P is (100/20 = )/x
    If x is the straight line distance from A to P, then why do you say x is 20 cos phi? I'm not seeing that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Yes xyzt, I failed.
    .
    Not really
    Last edited by whizkid; September 25th, 2014 at 02:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Show us how you summed up the individual cubes., and perhaps we can see where you are going wrong.
    Thanks harold, it is very kind of you to listen to my questions.

    As per post 44,
    A is standing at the Northpole and the southpole B is 20 units away. All points P on a circle give the same pull to A, which is 100/x^2 *cos phi, but circles near the equator E have more mass than the others.
    The angle phi is at A (PAB) and AP = x = cos phi*20, so the net pull by P is (100/20 = ) 5/x

    In the Southern hemisphere pull vary from .35 (at E) to .25 at B:
    y= 5/x from 10sqrt2 to 20 - Wolfram|Alpha.
    It is useless to do thousands of sums to get the exact average, let's concede (to prevent any objection) that all points here (1/2 of the total mass: 2pi*r^2) give the maximum pull (.35*628, P = 220)

    In the Northern hemisphere pulls vary from .35 (at E) to 1 (when phi= 76) and go from 1 to 4.2 (phi > 87, for a fractional number of points at distance 1 from A):
    y= 5/x from 0 to 10sqrt2 - Wolfram|Alpha

    Granting that all points give pull 1 (P = 628)
    the global pull is 1+.35/2 = .6748 P_O , P (= 628+220) = 848 / P_O (1256)
    (but doing individual sums we get about [probably less than] 1/2 P_O (.3+.6/2))

    Is there anything wrong in this procedure?
    Thanks again
    This has been explained to you:

    1. The Earth is not spherical, it is a geoid (a type of ellipsoid). Therefore the attraction force varies with position on the Earth surface.

    2. The force listed is the RESULTANT of the attractive force AND the centrifugal force. Therefore the attraction force varies with position on the Earth surface.

    So, far from invalidating the Shell Theorem, your continued droning simply proves your ignorance and, what is worse, your refusal to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Xyzt, I think he is just trying to get an intuitive idea of why the shell theorem works by approximating it with discrete masses. I don't see anything wrong with that. We all have different ways of learning. Yes, he could just go through the proofs using calculus which are published in Wiki and elsewhere. But if he wants to do this, what's the harm?

    Whizkid, I'll look at this later. Got to go back to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Xyzt, I think he is just trying to get an intuitive idea of why the shell theorem works by approximating it with discrete masses. I don't see anything wrong with that. We all have different ways of learning. Yes, he could just go through the proofs using calculus which are published in Wiki and elsewhere. But if he wants to do this, what's the harm?

    Whizkid, I'll look at this later. Got to go back to work.
    Based on my experience with him (the same experience POhDemon had), whizkid has an agenda, he's not trying to learn, he's trying to disprove mainstream science. Thesame agenda surfaced in his discussions on QM (with PhDemon) and on GR (with me and Janus). This, combined with his very obnoxious, petulant demeanor, makes his posts highly objectionable. Note how he insists on the variation of attractive force despite the fact that I explained to him that the numbers he's been rattling reflect a non spherical, rotating Earth.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; July 23rd, 2014 at 12:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Xyzt, I think he is just trying to get an intuitive idea of why the shell theorem works by approximating it with discrete masses. I don't see anything wrong with that. We all have different ways of learning. Yes, he could just go through the proofs using calculus which are published in Wiki and elsewhere. But if he wants to do this, what's the harm?

    Whizkid, I'll look at this later. Got to go back to work.
    Based on my experience with him (the same experience POhDemon had), whizkid has an agenda, hes not trying to learn, he's trying to disprove mainstream science. This, combined with his very obnoxious, petulant demeanor, makes his posts highly objectionable. Note how he insists on the variation of attractive force despite the fact that I explained to him that the numbers he's been rattling reflect a non spherical, rotating Earth.
    I think that mainstream science will withstand the onslaughts of whizkid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think that mainstream science will withstand the onslaughts of whizkid.]
    Yes, you are right :-)
    But his demeanor needs serious work. he needs to drop the attitude and start learning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Now that you know about the Shell Theorem do you still think that it works only for infinite distance?
    It works for any distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    It is useless to do thousands of sums to get the exact average
    Whizkid, if you mean that integration is thousands of sums, then your statement here is not right. Integration transcends sums and takes the solution to a completely different level of understanding and provides an exact solution. If you want, I think I can give you an example that shows this.

    I agree with Harold that we all have different ways of learning.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Now that you know about the Shell Theorem do you still think that it works only for infinite distance?
    It works for any distance.
    Excellent, we are good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    x = cos phi*20, so the net pull by P is (100/20 = ) 5/x
    Now you're going to have to explain this part to me because the gravitational pull is inversely proportional to x-squared, not x.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior whizkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Whizkid, if you mean that integration is thousands of sums, then your statement here is not right. Integration transcends sums and takes the solution to a completely different level of understanding and provides an exact solution. If you want, I think I can give you an example that shows this.
    .
    Integration may go beyond the physical limits
    Last edited by whizkid; September 25th, 2014 at 02:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Xyzt, I think he is just trying to get an intuitive idea of why the shell theorem works by approximating it with discrete masses. I don't see anything wrong with that. We all have different ways of learning. Yes, he could just go through the proofs using calculus which are published in Wiki and elsewhere. But if he wants to do this, what's the harm?

    Whizkid, I'll look at this later. Got to go back to work.
    Based on my experience with him (the same experience POhDemon had), whizkid has an agenda, hes not trying to learn, he's trying to disprove mainstream science. This, combined with his very obnoxious, petulant demeanor, makes his posts highly objectionable. Note how he insists on the variation of attractive force despite the fact that I explained to him that the numbers he's been rattling reflect a non spherical, rotating Earth.
    I think that mainstream science will withstand the onslaughts of whizkid.
    Excellent, I will let you deal with the incredible mess he's creating :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whizkid View Post
    What tells you that if you are standing at the North pole the sum of the pull of the single masses must level out exactly at the average value?
    Basic physics.

    Points nearer than the arctic are giving you almost no radial pull,
    This is obviously false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 08:57 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 21st, 2012, 11:16 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 19th, 2010, 01:40 PM
  4. Metabolism - how much does it vary?
    By Harold14370 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 11:09 PM
  5. the fifth distance method Spectroscopic parallax distance me
    By waq in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 14th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •