Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: A hugely massive rocky planet is hollow, how gravity would be at the inner surface?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    5

    A hugely massive rocky planet is hollow, how gravity would be at the inner surface?

    Hello guys.

    Thinking about gravity I imagined a rocky planet as big as a star, or even bigger, but despite being massive as a whole, it would be hollow.

    So, at the outside surface, gravity would be as normal as we know it.

    What about at the inner surface?

    Gravity would push you against the inner surface, or would pull you to fall to the middle of the inner void?

    Does the size of the inner void, comparatively to the rocky shell, makes any difference?

    Thanks a lot, and sorry for the newbie question.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,289
    The net gravitational force anywhere inside a massive uniform spherical shell is zero, according to something called Newton's Shell Theorem (useful search term for further reading).
    So you'd be in free fall anywhere inside your hollow planet (assuming the mass distribution was even), even right next to the inner surface.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    The net gravitational force anywhere inside a massive uniform spherical shell is zero, according to something called Newton's Shell Theorem (useful search term for further reading).
    So you'd be in free fall anywhere inside your hollow planet (assuming the mass distribution was even), even right next to the inner surface.

    Grant Hutchison
    Thank you very much Grant, I will try to understand the theorem.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    22,185
    As a quick addendum to Grant's post, I'd like to add that on that scale imperfections in the shell thickness might be important in terms of the spelunker's experience as the leap from the inner surface.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    5
    I'm not well versed in math or physics, but I think a lot about gravity, and I think we have it wrong somehow.

    If I saw a class about Newton's Shell Theorem in my time at school, I can't remember, I'm 53 now so that was a long time ago.

    But it is mind bending to think that if you have a hollow sphere made of black hole matter, extremely big, but with a very thin wall, you would float inside of it and right outside, very close to you, gravity would crush you so easily.

    Back to gravity, call me a cracked pot but I can't help myself but thinking it's all about space time density.

    Yeah, I said it.
    Last edited by Danilo Carrazzone; 2021-Aug-25 at 06:12 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,138
    As another addendum, Newton’s shell theorem works at all scales, but you cannot build a hollow shell on Earth and float about inside. Because external masses still exert gravity forces, by Newton’s gravity or by Einstein’s model. That is why your example uses a massive planet sized hollow with, presumably, no nearby masses of significance.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    A large body would not remain hollow in Real Life of course. I'm sure you know but I think it's worth pointing out. The gravity of the outer mass would still pull the material inward from the top/surface, and the underside would move accordingly.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    A large body would not remain hollow in Real Life of course. I'm sure you know but I think it's worth pointing out. The gravity of the outer mass would still pull the material inward from the top/surface, and the underside would move accordingly.
    If this is a rock planet, the loads are all compression in the skin, rock is good in compression, the route to being hollow is hypothetical but the thing could hold up. (But i have not shown calculations, )
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    22,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Danilo Carrazzone View Post
    ... Back to gravity, call me a cracked pot but I can't help myself but thinking it's all about space time density.
    You are new here. I recommend strongly that you read the rules, particularly about advocating non-mainstream ideas in Q&A and other mainstream parts of this forum.

    Forming opinions as we speak

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    You are new here. I recommend strongly that you read the rules, particularly about advocating non-mainstream ideas in Q&A and other mainstream parts of this forum.

    Oh, I'm very sorry, it will not be repeated, although I'm not advocating, just taking in consideration.

    About the massive planet not be strong enough to hold itself against it's own gravity pull, it was just a theoretical model, I am trying to understand what gravity really is.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,670
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    If this is a rock planet, the loads are all compression in the skin, rock is good in compression, the route to being hollow is hypothetical but the thing could hold up. (But i have not shown calculations, )
    Rock isn’t that good in compression. A moderate sized hollow asteroid might be possible, but the diameter of Earth? Or even worse, as described here something that is supposed to be the diameter of a star would collapse from self-gravity. You need compression strength beyond what normal matter is capable of, or some other method of support (for instance, as a general concept, a number of spinning rings, spinning fast enough to counter self gravity, each offset from others to appear roughly spherical when seen from a distance and that form a hollow interior).

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Rock isn’t that good in compression. A moderate sized hollow asteroid might be possible, but the diameter of Earth? Or even worse, as described here something that is supposed to be the diameter of a star would collapse from self-gravity. You need compression strength beyond what normal matter is capable of, or some other method of support (for instance, as a general concept, a number of spinning rings, spinning fast enough to counter self gravity, each offset from others to appear roughly spherical when seen from a distance and that form a hollow interior).
    I was toying with some numbers, maybe will continue if I have time. As diameter increases the risk of buckling increases to dominate the failure mode and buckling of a thin spherical shell would be complex. If this were to be an artificial huge hollow sphere, you could design anti buckling features, even in rock as a concrete material. Internal pressure in a gas would make a difference too. I am sure you are right about scale.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    If this is a rock planet, the loads are all compression in the skin, rock is good in compression, the route to being hollow is hypothetical but the thing could hold up. (But i have not shown calculations, )
    Solid rock is good in compression. After you get to the point of soft mantle, it decidedly loses that property. The mass described in the OP fulfills that condition.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Danilo Carrazzone View Post
    ….
    About the massive planet not be strong enough to hold itself against it's own gravity pull, it was just a theoretical model, I am trying to understand what gravity really is.
    You and others! Newton helped engineers with an equation good enough to go to the moon, but it does not explain gravity. Einstein went a lot further as you know, and produced a model that has passed many tests. Mass distorts space time and spacetime dictates how masses accelerate. But as you might ponder, that may be a better cosmic model but it gets no further than Newton did in explaining the mechanism. The other small scale model, started from quantum mechanics does not explain gravity either, does not even include it, but has also been tested extensively. Currently it is even more complicated because cosmic observations suggest more mass, dark matter, and another force, dark energy, opposing what we think of as gravity. Newton’s observational model was sufficient to prove his shell theorem. Like an onion you can consider a solid as a nest of shells. It leads to the model that inside a mass the gravity profile is linear, not the square law, with zero gravity at the centre, (assuming homogeneity). But this also assumes no significant external masses. And then Einstein predicted gravitational waves from far away massive encounters, and indeed they have been detected.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,583
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    ...Newton’s observational model was sufficient to prove his shell theorem....
    As I recall, Newton proved his shell theorem geometrically in his Principia.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    You and others! Newton helped engineers with an equation good enough to go to the moon, but it does not explain gravity. Einstein went a lot further as you know, and produced a model that has passed many tests. Mass distorts space time and spacetime dictates how masses accelerate. But as you might ponder, that may be a better cosmic model but it gets no further than Newton did in explaining the mechanism. The other small scale model, started from quantum mechanics does not explain gravity either, does not even include it, but has also been tested extensively. Currently it is even more complicated because cosmic observations suggest more mass, dark matter, and another force, dark energy, opposing what we think of as gravity. Newton’s observational model was sufficient to prove his shell theorem. Like an onion you can consider a solid as a nest of shells. It leads to the model that inside a mass the gravity profile is linear, not the square law, with zero gravity at the centre, (assuming homogeneity). But this also assumes no significant external masses. And then Einstein predicted gravitational waves from far away massive encounters, and indeed they have been detected.
    I think there is still a lot to think and to talk about gravity.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    As I recall, Newton proved his shell theorem geometrically in his Principia.
    But I think he used the square law in doing so and found the linear relation as a corollary. The square law does come from geometry if you assume a force arises from a point mass. Maybe he did then infer orbital mechanics from his assumption rather than observing inclined planes and so on. The behaviour of a falling mass does invoke his Laws. Otherwise acceleration toward Earth would vary with mass. Interesting point.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,804
    There are concepts for large artificial hollow structures that might allow something of this kind to be constructed. The Edersphere for instance is a large metal balloon surrounding a volume of gas, suggested by Dani Eder as a possible habitable megastructure.
    https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48472f9d56859
    An analysis of this concept here
    http://gravitationalballoon.blogspot...c-gravity.html

    ------------
    A smaller version is the Gravity Balloon, which uses rocks on the outer surface to counterbalance the gas pressure. A large version would be something like a hollow planet, with no gravity inside (not quite true, but close enough).
    http://gravitationalballoon.blogspot...y-balloon.html

    ------------
    The Supraself concept by Paul Birch is a vast and massive construction made from an entire galaxy, supported by orbiting particles inside mass accelerators. This object would bend space and time significantly; some details on this idea may be found in the last segment of this article by Birch;
    https://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/C...%20at%20...pdf

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    14,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Danilo Carrazzone View Post
    I think there is still a lot to think and to talk about gravity.
    Yes, there certainly is...but this is the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers subforum. This is where one gets mainstream answers to questions and those answers cannot be argued on an against-the-mainstream basis.
    As antoniseb advised, please do read our rules.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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