Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: gravity

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620

    gravity

    There must be a point between two gravitational objects where they pull equally on each other. Lets say there is the point between the earth and the sun. Is this point affected dependent on where other planets are in their
    orbit relative to the sun and earth?
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,980
    Indeed. It is called Lagrange One.



    All two body systems have such a point.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2018-Jan-28 at 11:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Indeed. It is called Lagrange One.



    All two body systems have such a point.
    Do they have more than one Lagrange?
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Do they have more than one Lagrange?
    five

    330px-Lagrange_points2.svg.png
    Formerly Frog march..............

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,160
    At any given point, the gravitational components from any two bodies will be independent of other bodies. Of course those other bodies will perturb something at that point.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Do they have more than one Lagrange?
    Yes. As WaxRubiks pints out, there are actually five in any given two-body system.

    But only L1 is relevant to your question. It's the only one that is balanced between the two systems.

    That's why I manually edited the other 4 out of my diagram for clarity in post 2.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    So being a newbie, can you explain what is happening at each point. L1 is pretty obvious but the rest??? Thanks
    I know that I know nothing, so I question everything. - Socrates/Descartes

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by DaCaptain View Post
    So being a newbie, can you explain what is happening at each point. L1 is pretty obvious but the rest??? Thanks
    Have a read here. And see if you have more questions.

    It explains, fairly concisely, what is happening at each point.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,559
    Quote Originally Posted by DaCaptain View Post
    So being a newbie, can you explain what is happening at each point. L1 is pretty obvious but the rest??? Thanks
    if there were a boulder at L4, it would be orbiting the Sun, but in one orbit of the Sun, it will have also made one orbit of Earth. So it is in a position to keep orbiting both Earth and Sun.
    Formerly Frog march..............

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,160
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    if there were a boulder at L4, it would be orbiting the Sun, but in one orbit of the Sun, it will have also made one orbit of Earth. So it is in a position to keep orbiting both Earth and Sun.
    That's a clever way of analyzing it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Lets look at the two body problem from a different angle. Lets say we have two solid uniform spheres touching each other. Sphere A and Sphere BThe gravity at the contact point is one. We want to look at the point in Sphere A where the the gravity decreases linearly to the center, at which point it is zero. Sphere B, the gravity from its surface decreases inversely to the square of the distance from Sphere B's center. At which point is the gravity from A and B equal. I set up the following equation, which I think is correct.



    x has the value which is one over the golden ratio squared, one, and the golden ratio squared. Is my equation correct for this problem.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Lets look at the two body problem from a different angle. Lets say we have two solid uniform spheres touching each other. ...
    This is not the two body problem
    In classical mechanics, the two-body problem is to determine the motion of two point particles that interact only with each other.
    This is about the gravity outside of the point particles and thus outside of any equivalent solid uniform spheres. You are trying to look at the gravitation inside of the spheres.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jan-29 at 11:49 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Lets look at the two body problem from a different angle. Lets say we have two solid uniform spheres touching each other. Sphere A and Sphere BThe gravity at the contact point is one. We want to look at the point in Sphere A where the the gravity decreases linearly to the center, at which point it is zero. Sphere B, the gravity from its surface decreases inversely to the square of the distance from Sphere B's center. At which point is the gravity from A and B equal. I set up the following equation, which I think is correct.



    x has the value which is one over the golden ratio squared, one, and the golden ratio squared. Is my equation correct for this problem.
    Yes. The absolute values are the same, but your solution gives you two points where the gravity cancels, and one where it adds.
    And there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the OP.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,272
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes. The absolute values are the same, but your solution gives you two points where the gravity cancels, and one where it adds.
    And there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the OP.
    Actually, the addition point is non-physical, since it extends the gravity rules for inside to the outside, and for outside to the inside.
    You can find the third balance point by recasting the equation, or just from symmetry. It's at 2 - 1/φ = φ.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Actually, the addition point is non-physical, since it extends the gravity rules for inside to the outside, and for outside to the inside.
    You can find the third balance point by recasting the equation, or just from symmetry. It's at 2 - 1/φ = φ.

    Grant Hutchison
    That is a very good point! Balance point!
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,138
    Also, it is a common misconception that the Langrange point is where the gravity of the two objects cancel. That's not the case, to get the Lagrange point you go into a reference frame that is corotating with the orbit of the two bodies (which are assumed to be in circular orbits). Then the Lagrange points are where the gravity of the two objects add up to cancel the centrifugal force in that rotating frame, so that's effectively three forces that add up to zero, not two.

    Also, it should probably be noted that both the center of the Earth, and the center of the Sun, would be Lagrange points in the Earth/Sun system (neglecting all other bodies), but those two Lagrange points are rarely counted, I presume because they are regarded as inaccessible.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2018-Jan-30 at 03:49 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    There must be a point between two gravitational objects where they pull equally on each other. Lets say there is the point between the earth and the sun. Is this point affected dependent on where other planets are in their
    orbit relative to the sun and earth?
    I want to point out something pedantic. It definitely seems like the question you want to ask is about the Lagrange points, and other people have answered that reasonably well. But that's when two objects pull equally on a third object (and there's also the effective centrifugal force to balance, as Ken G brings up; thinking about that makes it easier to understand what's going on at the Lagrange points other than L1).

    The question you actually asked is when two objects pull "equally on each other". And the answer to that is that they always do. The gravitational force on the Earth from the Sun is always exactly equal (but in the opposite direction) to the force on the Sun from the Earth. That's just Newton's Third Law.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    I want to point out something pedantic. It definitely seems like the question you want to ask is about the Lagrange points, and other people have answered that reasonably well. But that's when two objects pull equally on a third object (and there's also the effective centrifugal force to balance, as Ken G brings up; thinking about that makes it easier to understand what's going on at the Lagrange points other than L1).

    The question you actually asked is when two objects pull "equally on each other". And the answer to that is that they always do. The gravitational force on the Earth from the Sun is always exactly equal (but in the opposite direction) to the force on the Sun from the Earth. That's just Newton's Third Law.
    Makes sense. What I was thinking, was not then a Lagrange point.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,980
    You might be thinking of the barycentre.

    Every pair of bodies has a common point about which they orbit as a system.

    The Earth-Moon's barycentre is actually inside the Earth, about 1700 km below the surface.

    Two bodies that are of similar mass will have their baryentre proportionately near the physical midpoint of the two of them.

    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2018-Jan-31 at 12:54 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    You might be thinking of the barycentre.

    Every pair of bodies has a common point about which they orbit as a system.

    The Earth-Moon's barycentre is actually inside the Earth, about 1700 km below the surface.

    Two bodies that are of similar mass will have their baryentre proportionately near the physical midpoint of the two of them.

    I'm not really sure what would be going. I was really thinking about David's Static Universe. It got me thinking about what would dark energy be. Which I think dark energy could be consistent with the observations. Then I was trying to figure out something for red shift and as I was playing around with equations trying to figure out how it would be consistent with my own theories of the universe being a sphere made of spheres. I came up with the equation which I brought up.



    I had heard of lagrange points before, but I am not always familiar with the language. I also have heard about the rotation around a common center of gravity. I thought it was interesting that my equation had come up with relation to the golden ratio or as like grant hutchison had noted .

    In my own theory the spheres made of spheres have many built in packing defects, so I think it would probably be a center of gravity of a cloud of defects traveling around some center of gravity of a cloud of defects. But I don't know that this is happening, but if it is, how it would be characterized, and what it would be called. I don't know that anyone ever examined this particular relationship, , before either.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2018-Jan-31 at 03:44 AM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I'm not really sure what would be going. I was really thinking about David's Static Universe. It got me thinking about what would dark energy be. Which I think dark energy could be consistent with the observations. Then I was trying to figure out something for red shift and as I was playing around with equations trying to figure out how it would be consistent with my own theories of the universe being a sphere made of spheres. I came up with the equation which I brought up.



    I had heard of lagrange points before, but I am not always familiar with the language. I also have heard about the rotation around a common center of gravity. I thought it was interesting that my equation had come up with relation to the golden ratio or as like grant hutchison had noted .

    In my own theory the spheres made of spheres have many built in packing defects, so I think it would probably be a center of gravity of a cloud of defects traveling around some center of gravity of a cloud of defects. But I don't know that this is happening, but if it is, how it would be characterized, and what it would be called. I don't know that anyone ever examined this particular relationship, , before either.

    Yeah, and let's not go there any further.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,272
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    You might be thinking of the barycentre.

    Every pair of bodies has a common point about which they orbit as a system.

    The Earth-Moon's barycentre is actually inside the Earth, about 1700 km below the surface.

    Two bodies that are of similar mass will have their baryentre proportionately near the physical midpoint of the two of them.
    The barycentre doesn't match what Copernicus seems to be looking for, except in the case where the two bodies are of equal mass. The barycentre is always closer to the more massive of the two bodies, so any test mass placed at the barycentre will fall towards the more massive body.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    It definitely seems like the question you want to ask is about the Lagrange points, and other people have answered that reasonably well. But that's when two objects pull equally on a third object (and there's also the effective centrifugal force to balance, as Ken G brings up; thinking about that makes it easier to understand what's going on at the Lagrange points other than L1).
    It is essential to include the centrifugal force, even at L1, or it's not L1.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It is essential to include the centrifugal force, even at L1, or it's not L1.
    Absolutely. I think it's just that L1 looks vaguely right (qualitatively, at least; it wouldn't work out to the correct distance) without factoring that in, so someone might think they understand how that one works, but then end up confused about how the other points can end up being balanced, as DaCaptain was in post 7.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The barycentre doesn't match what Copernicus seems to be looking for, except in the case where the two bodies are of equal mass. The barycentre is always closer to the more massive of the two bodies, so any test mass placed at the barycentre will fall towards the more massive body.

    Grant Hutchison
    This would be for exactly equal masses. The equations could be rewritten as follows.


    The solutions are
    y=1

    And

    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This would be for exactly equal masses. The equations could be rewritten as follows.


    The solutions are
    y=1

    And

    And thus phi, the golden ratio, appears again.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    And thus phi, the golden ratio, appears again.


    The solutions are
    y=1

    And



    The equation would represent the point of gravity from one sphere(sphere A) decreasing linearly as one goes from the outer edge of the sphere towards the center and the gravity of an adjacent sphere (Sphere B) decreasing inversely to the square from the center of (Sphere B). Assuming each sphere is uniform and exactly equal in mass.

    What I can't figure out is if this relationship can be converted to an equation for the spiral of the golden ratio.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post

    The solutions are
    y=1

    And



    The equation would represent the point of gravity from one sphere(sphere A) decreasing linearly as one goes from the outer edge of the sphere towards the center and the gravity of an adjacent sphere (Sphere B) decreasing inversely to the square from the center of (Sphere B). Assuming each sphere is uniform and exactly equal in mass.

    What I can't figure out is if this relationship can be converted to an equation for the spiral of the golden ratio.
    You mean, using the definition of golden ratio? That a golden-ratio rectangle is such that removing a square from it leaves a golden-ratio rectangle? That (x)/1 = gr = (x-1)/1 ?

    Is that what you mean?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    You mean, using the definition of golden ratio? That a golden-ratio rectangle is such that removing a square from it leaves a golden-ratio rectangle? That (x)/1 = gr = (x-1)/1 ?

    Is that what you mean?
    What I am thinking is that instead of going directly from the edge of the sphere to the center of the sphere there must be points of a triangle where the base of the triangle is from the edge of the sphere to the center of the sphere. The angles of the triangle would be a, b and 180-(a+b). The triangle could be made into to right triangles. Like the following link to a triangle. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LOFOX0eqT4...00/coslaw3.png

    The equation would then change to, I believe,



    where and some how this equation would eventually equal

    where a and b are different then the triangle a and b and c. Which is the equation for the spiral of the golden ratio.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The barycentre doesn't match what Copernicus seems to be looking for
    I know, but he was reaching for something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •