Yes, gravitation will be almost same, but not exactly same. The Earth's gravity is due to its own mass. However, the Moon's and the Sun's gravitational forces also have a very small effect on an object's weight on the Earth's surface.
Tides are proportional to the size of the object times the gradient of the field, which has an inverse cubic law. Still, highly "flexible" material like liquid would change its shape so that each small piece of it will be in free fall. So unless the ocean can "feel" its shape change or its motion relative to the solid Earth, it does not "feel" the gravity of the Sun. Rigid objects are different matter since they have to sustain the stress (I am not sure this is the correct terminology).
I wonder if mass particles weigh more on the Sun than on Earth. And if the sky would be much brighter than it is if the Sun wouldn't redshift its own light.
Methinks the tone of responses in this thread and the amount of latitude being given to the new poster may have something to do with her apparent gender. And that isn't a slam on you, tashja, I'm not saying you deserve to be ridiculed or anything; that's just the course these threads usually take by now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, if you mean that gravity is stronger near the Sun's surface. But, what is "mass particle"? No, it is practically not observable. Just for fun, let us suppose that Sun's redshift was so much that the visible light we see is actually ultraviolet light when it is just leaving the Sun. Now if you turn off the redshift, some part of the infrared region as we perceive on Earth becomes the visible spectrum. We know that the visible spectrum is the brightest part of the spectrum (reason: evolution), so actually the Sun would become dimmer if you turn off the redshift.
Methinks Mr. Beery that when people ask questions that may be obvious to you, they are just at a different level of understanding in this particular subject and want to make sense of the universe too. Personally I hold physicists in high regard and with this forum average folk like me can get a better understanding of how things work. I only wish my math skills matched my curiousity and all the theories that I could suppose.
I'm sorry proof please... If you subtract the gravitational forces applied by a sufficiently large mass I doubt highly the gravity of an object would remain statistically equivalent to the current force... I mean sure the earth is big to us, but the sun is quite a bit larger and has a much higher significant force.
For an object on the Earth's surface, if you compare the gravitational forces exerted on it due to the Sun and due to the Earth: its distance from the Sun is about 1.50x10^11 m, and its distance from the Earth's center is about 6.37x10^6 m. So the object's distance from the Sun is approx. 23500 times that of its distance from the Earth's center. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance... Whereas 23500^2 = approx. 552 million. But the mass of the Sun is only about 333000 times the mass of the Earth, so it's the greater distance factor that has a much higher significance and wins over the greater mass.
While I am familiar with the whole "OMG, ita a girl!!!" thing which can happen on forums I don't see any reason to engage in it. Does it matter if the person the other side of the screen is male or female, given we'll never interact any way other than this forum? As for the responses given I'd say it was more to do with the fact the OP seems to honestly want to learn, rather than having a presupposed conclusion she/he is trying to bend the questions towards. This is unlike, say, yourself or DRZion in regards to fluid mechanics or MacM and GR. I did my usual "This might be biting off more than you can chew" polite comment and she/he didn't push it, unlike plenty of cranks. If he/she were still trying to talk about the specifics of tensor calculus and talking about curvatures when he/she hasn't got any knowledge of them (say like Farsight does) then I'd be responding in my usual less than cuddly way (like I do with Farsight). Often the reason cranks get a hard time is not the questions they ask its the way they ask them. Everyone, including myself, asks basic questions at some point but not everyone thinks they already know the answers.
It's a well-known fact that if you answer all of a girl's Physics questions she is obligated to go on a date with you.
''she is obligated to go on a date with you.'' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for your answers, guys!!! ;-)
Physics courses are notorious for high male:female ratios. One year I was helping teach a course to once had 12 girls in about 140, 8 of which were doing the course as part of their geophysics degree. 10 postgrads between the 140 students and I wound up with the geophysics group. I can attest that such a rule does not apply. We didn't have to but some universities make anyone doing any teaching to undergrads to sign forms saying they won't 'abuse their position of power' and get involved with anyone they are teaching. Perhaps I'm getting old (late 20s) but I'm sure toys in my day weren't as creepy as Lazy Town.
Nah bro you just screwed up a great opportunity. All 12 girls were just waiting for you to make the first move...didn't you read tashja's confirmation? This is all common knowledge, man. Anyway I didn't mean to take the thread off course; it's just that the tone in this particular thread is closer to what I would appreciate the norm being on the rest of the forum.
Is that true ? Good to know these things , so we can exploit opportunities of this mass proportion. This is big. I gots to spread the word
There we go talking about a large mass again. Is that all you women think about? You better put you reading glasses back on and think about other things besides massive objects with force. Jeeze I know you all think about sex all the time , but there is more to life besides getting massive objects by force
