(To be clear, I’m more interested in the reach and scaling of gravity.)

If we were to suddenly double earth’s mass, but not it’s size, would it’s field double in size (I assume strength as well), to the extent that if I were to measure this increased gravity at the same place I measured earth’s normal gravity, it would simply be double? If so, the least measurable point of both gravitates should also be the same?

Just wondering if there’s diminishing returns or if mass and density affects a gravity field the same regardless of whether it’s an asteroid or a billion Solar Masses.

Feel free to share any views I’m not taking into account in regards to gravity fields.

Thanks

  • whiskyriot@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From my layman perspective, yes the measured gravity would be double it’s original value if measured from the same place.

    Gravity is an [edit: inverse squared] function, so it gets weaker at an exponential rate as you move away from the source. But even if it’s a value of 1.0 at Earth’s surface and .02 at some distant point from Earth, doubling Earth’s gravity would double both values to 2.0 and .04, respectively.

    • FlowVoid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gravity is not exponential. It is linear with mass and inverse square with distance.

      • A_A@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey @Jeredin@lemm.ee

        This one, @FlowVoid@midwest.social, has the correct answer…

        So, don’t believe in the crackpot idea that it would be exponential

          • A_A@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I did make I have made many mistakes, much worse than this one and on many occasions. I would say : don’t be so hard on yourself since it’s important to forgive ourselves.

            I do believe the following correction should be made again to your text though :

            Gravity is an [edit: inverse squared] function, so it gets weaker at an exponential a squared rate as you move away from the source.

    • Jeredin@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This was the answer I was after, thank you!

      Additional question that’s related, if you’d like to try it: I’ve read about vacuum energy/zero point energy - hawking radiation exists because of those theories. From what I’ve read, vacuum energy has the potential for any form of matter but because of the uncertainty principle, less likely to produce higher forms of energy, and thus why most fluctuations produce only virtual particles. My main question then is: so no matter what, all of space ether has matter or potential for matter? If so, should a photon actually collide with a virtual particle it would actually stay in physical existence)?

      Thank again

      I would assume I’m not interested in any of the associated crackpot ideas some have.

      • FlowVoid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If a photon collides with a particle, virtual or not, then the particle will eventually emit another photon.