/sci/ - Science & Math

Assuming the planet doesn't collapse, yes, the object would go towards the center of mass.

>>1323306
This ia a pretty easy question, you can uses Gausses law for gravitation to calculate the gravity at any point of any weird ass object you want.

So, yeah, go do the math.

No. Inside a homogeneous mass shell, gravitational potential is constant. Gravitational force is therefore zero.

Newton showed this in the Principia.

why would it go to the center, it would go to the point of the crust thats closest to it. gravity is weaker the further you are so the parallel point does not cancel out the contact points gravity

No, shell theorem.

Also
>Gravity, a pulling effect created by the interaction of waves generated the fluctuation in space created by every mass bearing particle and pulls in towards the cumulative center of mass
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Qualitative arguments are misleading here. Yes gravity is weaker with distance. But inside a shell, as you get further away from one point, there are more points that are far away from you. It turns out that for any inverse square law of force (gravity, Coulomb) the two trends exactly balance.

>>1323325
but gravity acts in a wave much like magnetism, so wouldn't constructive interference be brought into the equation

>>1323340
No, there are no waves in this problem because nothing is oscillating, and besides, gravitational waves are pretty weak unless the thing's moving very fast.

A constant in both space and time is a perfectly valid solution to the wave equation. Assuming the mass shell has been in existence for at least, say, 3 seconds, there are no ripples left. The steady-state solution is the only one relevant.

WOW sure are alot of faggots (engineers in here)

The answer is
>>1323320

\Thread

>>1323340
yeah but inside a shell electricity and gravity have different properties. if two planets have to same mass, and an object is placed closer to the planet on the left, doest it go to the center. no because along this axis the forces arent of equal magnitude.

>>1323355

>>1323355
thats physics, hes just using it wrong

You want to calulate gravity, why wouldnt you use gausses law for gravitation?

>>1323355
Agreed

>>1323363
because it doesnt exist

>>1323324
So what about an approach using general relativity? Even possible?

>>1323402
Wow, let me guess, you're an engineer ( a faggot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss'_law_for_gravity

Are you pulled toward the center of the universe?
No, so why would that apply here?

>>1323412
No, you do not need such advanced physics, for such a simple problem. All you need is classical (Gausses law for gravity).

>>1323412
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkhoff's_theorem_(relativity)#Implications

>>1323306
OP is a troll, askes physics question but doesn't like physics answer.

GTFO!

>>1323426
Well, duh. Newton's shell theorem isn't that hard, ffs. I was merely asking if an approach using general relativity would yield a different answer. On the other hand, I'm not even sure that a metric (as a solution to the Einstein field equations) exists that describes such a circular shell.

>>1323419
you dont have a job, do you

>>1323428
Thank you Sir, I was looking for exactly something like this.

>>1323306

>>1323432
Ohh, ok. Well, the GR approch yields the same reults as classical physics. So there really is no need to use GR.

>>1323433
Yes, I have a job? Why?

>>1323448
>implying you have a job

>>1323444
Have fun with your unexplained perihelium shift, brah.

>>1323455
Really? Me saying I have a job implies I have a job? WOW, you must be in the top of your special ED class.

>>1323468
>still implying you have a job

>>1323468
you got trolled hard, try to recognize sarcasm, it helps to prevent trolls

>>1323491
>>1323496

sage

>>1323517
who sages anymore