if you could generate two gtravitational fields that are both of the same scale/ strength so to say and then a object was placed between would it be pulled apart or stay in levetation or something completely different
it would stay in between two objects forever. That's of course if it was exactly in the middle and both gravitational fields were the same and there was no other gravitational fields in this hypothetical world.
stephen I have AIM (aol messenger) name: draqonYIE but you got to understand I am 20 year old college student, not some professor, and I know this stuff only vaguely.
It depends upon the strengths of the gravity fields and the composition of the object between them. If it were two black holes and the object was, say, a car, then it could get ripped apart; if it were a planet between two golf balls then it would pull them toward itself. If a golf ball and two planets then it could achieve equilibrium providing no other forces were acting. If three planets then they'd meet in the middle...
What you are suggesting is a bit unrealistic. The two gravitational fields would have to be due to two objects, The two objects would have to be constrained in some manner to keep them from causing mutual motion. If not constrained somehow, they would orbit each other, crash into each other, or separate on parabolic or hyperbolic paths. The above assumes no other objects close enough to have an effect of the two objects. Now given that the two objects are somehow kept from moving relative to each other, a gaseous or liquid object between them would be pulled apart (the gas or liquid molecules closer to one object would be pulled toward that object). A solid object between them would be highly unlikely to stay still at the midpoint. Any slight lack of symmetry would cause it to move away from the center. It would either orbit one of the two objects, crash into one of them, or escape from the system. An attempt to achieve a gravitationally stable system is somewhat analogous to trying to balance a needle on its point. In a vacuum (or at least in the absence of air currents), it might seem theoretically possible to balance the needle on its point, but quantum level motion would upset the delicate balance. Rigid solid objects do not exist in the real world, except for particles like protons, neutrons, or electrons. Even such particles are not accurately modeled by imagining them to be like small steel balls (they have some wave-like or field properties unlike small steel balls). At the molecular, atomic, and smaller quantum levels, there are motions and energy processes. Due to these motions & processes, what seems to be a rigid object is a seething mass of activity and a lot of empty space. Most symmetric gravitational systems decay into a nonsymmetric system. I have simulated systems with two or more equal mass objects in elliptical or circular orbits around their center of mass. I have also simulated similar systems with an object moving like a yo-yo along a line perpendicular to the plane of the orbiting objects and passing through the center of mass of the orbiting objects. Due to round off errors, the simulations lose their symmetry in 20-500 years of simulated real time. If such systems were set up in reality (whatever that means), I am sure the symmetry would similarly decay with time. A more accurate simulation or a real system might last longer. Round off error would eventually cause the simulated system to lose symmetry. Quantum level effects would similarly destroy the symmetry of the real system.
