[Airthumbs]

If the fact that we are in so called free-fall orbit around the sun would indicate that this area of zero gravity is not effected by the gravity of the moon or sun then;

Why do we have tides on the surface of the planet where gravity is at full strength?  Is this not effected by the pull of the moons gravity?  If the moon can exert such an influence on the surface of the Earth then would it also do something to the huge area within the Earth that is less effected by gravity?

Professor Brian Cox seems to think and has stated that gravity is responsible for the commencement of the reaction at the centre of stars.  Also this extract: "In the nebular hypothesis, the majority of the mass of the dust cloud collects at the center. The intense gravitational forces present ultimately lead to nuclear fusion taking place. As most of the matter initially present in the nebula is hydrogen, the process of hydrogen burning takes place." (University of Winnipeg) 

How can the above be correct when at the centre of a large mass such as the Sun, nebulae, there is essentially zero gravity in total contradiction to this theory! So I would hypothesise that nuclear fusion must take place at the point where gravity is the strongest, on the surface?

Finally, maybe if you were able to find your way to the centre of a large interstellar object you would not float at all in zero gravity but your atoms would all get pulled apart by the forces pulling on you in every direction.  I imagine this would not be a very pleasant experience, but does it explain nuclear fusion?

[Geezer]

How can the above be correct when at the centre of a large mass such as the Sun, nebulae, there is essentially zero gravity in total contradiction to this theory! So I would hypothesise that nuclear fusion must take place at the point where gravity is the strongest, on the surface?

Ah! You may be missing an important point here. Gravity at the center of a star is zero, but the pressure is enormous. The pressure is caused by gravity pulling all the material towards the center. The pulling force (gravity) reduces near the center, but the enormous mass of material above the center creates the pressure.

The pressure results in fusion, but gravity was still responsible for creating the pressure.

[Airthumbs]

Thanks geezer, so it is the pressure combined with heat that causes fusion and this is a result of the forces of gravity bringing the mass together in the first place.  Ahhhh now it makes sense. 

What about the tide thing and the Moon with relation to the zero gravity area? Any suggestions......

[imatfaal]

Aaron - Newtons Shell theorem (the one that tells us, amongst other things, that gravity within the above mentioned shell is zero) does specify that the material of the shell is symmetrical and spherical for zero gravitational attraction to apply.  The presence of the moon and sun (and to a much much lesser extent) the other planets do disrupt this symmetry.  I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, that the effect of the moon could be worked out using simple F = G.m₁.m₂/r² - and I dont think it would be very much at all.

[Airthumbs]

I cannot help notice that everyone is using empty shells to describe the gravity on earth. Why is that please?

[Geezer]

Well, life's really just a bag o'shells in the end, ain't it?

[yor_on]

Think of a 'point of gravity'. Then decide how you think it 'radiates'. I know it doesn't relatively seen, but the shell theorem is a Newtonian approach, and quite useful.

When I think of it like that I get all those arrows pointing equally 'out in space' from every point of our original  point

And their 'magnitude/strength' of 'gravity' should (in a empty space) be equal from any position on that 'point'. A little like our common Erinaceus europaeus (hedgehog) turning itself into a bristling ball of spikes. Then you just need to mark up each of those arrows in equal measures, and finally, at every point, 'roof them over'.

Now you got the 'shells', well, as I see it
==

And yes, the arrows should in reality point 'inwards' towards that 'point', not 'outwards'. But when you're inside, having the shells surrounding you, then the arrows becomes (at least) twofold as I see it.

[Airthumbs]

yor_on, thanks for the explanation, I was thinking that as gravity is variable within a solid sphere, like the earth, that a shell would fail to describe this.  I suppose if it is uniformly variable then this shell theory would be adequate, I'm not sure so please can you help me?

When I imagine all these arrows originating from a single point I take that point to be the centre of the earth. So as far as I can envisage there would be no arrows to start with and they would slowly get bigger and bigger as they make there way towards to surface of the earth reaching maximum strength on the surface and then slowly getting smaller and smaller as they head off into space. If you could average out the size of the arrows then you would eventually get a shell I suppose although how thick this shell is would be relative to the mass of the subject? 

Geezer, Is the universe just a bag of shells too?  []

[yor_on]

Hmm, I think we are seeing it differently I was just using it as an idea for how to construct different shells, building up a mass. And there I used the arrows for getting my poles to construct my shells on. You shouldn't take it as the theorem itself. Newton first decided to treat Earth as an evenly distributed mass, and that decision he made looking at the direction of falling objects. They all seemed to point to the middle of the Earth, which then gave him the direction to work from.

Then he thought of earth  as one thin shell only, and decided that, if you looked at a 'moon' close to this thin Earth-shell, the Earth's gravitational attraction on the moon had to be the sum of all vectors that could bear on it. Right under the moon the Earth-moon attraction would be strongest, and the further out to the 'rim' of our shell-Earth you went, as seen from that moon (in 2-D, sort of), the weaker that attraction should be.

Thinking like that he created an equation stating that the sum of all those vectors had to be equal to if this shell-earth had all its mass placed at/in the center of itself. And if that moon had been inside the shell all those vectors would cancel themselves out leaving no measurable 'gravity'. And that's because the shells 'gravity vectors' would now work on that moon in the middle from all 'sides/points' of that Earth-shell, if we think of how he defined those first vectors.

I was wrong thinking of it as a twofold arrow. To him all mass of the Earth could be seen as laying in that center, meaning that if you dug a shaft into the earth you could ignore the mass above you as you went down. After all, according to his idea the mass would behave as if it was concentrated at that center of the earth.

Now we take my idea of all those shells again, and define each one as if all their 'mass' all was placed in the center. Phieew, I should have looked at it before telling you how I thought of it.. I actually though I knew it But its a long time since I looked at that one.

But you can look at it this way too, when you dig your way down the 'forces' of the gravitation coming from the sides, acting at you, take themselves out as they meet at your position, so the the force left is the one pointing down, possibly?

I'm not even sure if that's correct actually But it seems like it would fit this idea.
He was one very smart guy.
==

But I think you can use the arrows and a twofold direction too? You just need to see where they meet the moon, there you will have the 'gravity arrows' working both directions 'attracting'. That is, if you imagine that first 'point' from where they go out to be the center of the earth. I'm not sure but I think it would be the same, as if you think of the arrows hitting the moon and then move the moon closer and closer to that point until they merge. In the merge there can't be any arrows pointing anywhere.

Does that make any sense? You would need to have a decided equilibrium between the moon and the Earth though, and then move that as a lever, reaching a maximum on the surface to then thin off, getting into a 'negative phase' as it continues past? Nah, it doesn't make sense. How would one get to that idea from my arrows?

Hah, Maybe you could, that is if you defined gravity as needing something to act on.. Then you could suspect that as the objects merged there wouldn't be anything to ... Naaah

But your concept of the arrows getting thicker as they reach the surface to then get thinner as gravity weaken again makes sense. The only problem being that we know it does so

Newton reasoned his way without knowing.
I'm getting jealous here

[Geezer]

Geezer, Is the universe just a bag of shells too?  []

Sigh!

Probably.

It's a play on the words, "Life is but a bagatel". In other words, "it's a crap shoot".

So, probability has a lot to do with things on Earth, and also in the Universe.