How far does gravity reach?

[geistkiesel]

How far does gravity reach?

I ask the question after grocking the discovery of Neptune and Pluto. Neptune was discovered from anomolus trajectory motions of Uranus. Pluto was discovered from Neptunes erratic trajectory.

If Uranus was the only planet in the solar system observed to be effected by Neptune, then is this a measure of the distance gravity extends?

The same question regarding Pluto where only Neptune was observed as effected.

At least as far as observation establishes gravity has a limited range of effect force. I understand that many papers and discussion assume a huge gravitational range, but the closest stars to our solar system have never been linked with an effect on planet motion.

Is there a theory that expressly states, or even infers. that gravity has no limit to the range of its forces. Even in our galaxy it would seem that gravity, the weakest of known forces forces, would be severely limited and that electromagnetic forces should extend farther in space than gravity.

I just came in from a binocular scan of the night sky and I must report that the nearest star to our planets just doesn't quite reach the limits of resolution of my observational gear. I grant the sun does have a measured effect.

 

[prometheus]

Gravity extends to infinity. You can see that by looking at Newtons gravitational law and taking r to be very large.

$$F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$$

 

[BenTheMan]

To add to that, the dominant source of the gravitational field in the solar system is the sun. The fact that Pluto's orbit is elliptical, with the sun at one of the foci (in accordance with the predictions of Newton) should give you a hint that the effect due to Neptune on Pluto's orbit is small, compared with the force between Pluto and the sun.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Perturbations of planetary orbits due to all planets are predicted and observed but the dominant effects always come from the Sun, Jupiter and the nearest other planets. The motion of Uranus is perturbed by Jupiter, Saturn etc by a noticable amount and it was only after these were taken into account that people realised there's got to be something else tugging on the planet. Similarly, the precession of Mercury is affected by the planets and in computing the fact that Merucy's orbit precesses in a way not explainable by Newton you must include the perturbations from all other planets.

 

[kurros]

Not to mention that galaxies stay in blobby shapes or spirals due to gravity, and galactic clusters clump together due to gravity, and the large scale chains of galactic superclusters formed due to gravity, scales vastly greater than our tiny little solar system.

Electromagnetic forces extend to infinity as well, but since they cause matter to form electrically neutral clumps they don't matter much on these kinds of scales. Magnetic phenomenon play a certain role I believe even at the galactic scale, but I don't think such things are well understood. Certainly gravity is the dominant force on large scales.

 

[D H]

At least as far as observation establishes gravity has a limited range of effect force. I understand that many papers and discussion assume a huge gravitational range, but the closest stars to our solar system have never been linked with an effect on planet motion.

Non sequitur.

Is there a theory that expressly states, or even infers. that gravity has no limit to the range of its forces.

Yes. Moreover, there is no viable theory which says otherwise.

Even in our galaxy it would seem that gravity, the weakest of known forces forces, would be severely limited and that electromagnetic forces should extend farther in space than gravity.

Even though the gravitational force between a pair of protons is orders of magnitude (~36 orders of magnitude) weaker than the electrostatic force between a pair of protons, there is a very good reason for thinking that gravity is the dominant force at anything approaching astronomical distances: Matter is electrically neutral. On the other hand, there is no such thing as negative mass.

I just came in from a binocular scan of the night sky and I must report that the nearest star to our planets just doesn't quite reach the limits of resolution of my observational gear. I grant the sun does have a measured effect.[/QUOTE]

 

[temur]

At least as far as observation establishes gravity has a limited range of effect force.

How do you explain the Sun going around the galactic center without gravity?

 

[geistkiesel]

Gravity extends to infinity. You can see that by looking at Newtons gravitational law and taking r to be very large.

$$F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$$

Let me rephrase. What observatiuonal evidence supports the 'extends to infinity clainm'?

 

[geistkiesel]

To add to that, the dominant source of the gravitational field in the solar system is the sun. The fact that Pluto's orbit is elliptical, with the sun at one of the foci (in accordance with the predictions of Newton) should give you a hint that the effect due to Neptune on Pluto's orbit is small, compared with the force between Pluto and the sun.

I read it that the sun mass extends its gravitational range relative to Pluto or Neptune's gravitational range. B ut the range of Pluto vs the Sun is finite.

 

[geistkiesel]

How do you explain the Sun going around the galactic center without gravity?

How do you know this? have you ever meassured the radius of curvature of the sun's trajectory? I say any measurement of this radius of cuvature will result in a straight line trajectory - but fear not some theory will produce an appropriate curve.

Try the concept that the paradigms of conservation of angular momentum as being infinite and that these rules govern and regulate the result of gravitational forces that are measured by the system's resultant perturbations of motion.

 

[geistkiesel]

“ Originally Posted by geistkiesel
At least as far as observation establishes gravity has a limited range of effect force. I understand that many papers and discussion assume a huge gravitational range, but the closest stars to our solar system have never been linked with an effect on planet motion. ”

Non sequitur.

Read it again.

“

“ Is there a theory that expressly states, or even infers. that gravity has no limit to the range of its forces. ”

Yes. Moreover, there is no viable theory which says otherwise.

Reference the "Yes"

“

“ Even in our galaxy it would seem that gravity, the weakest of known forces forces, would be severely limited and that electromagnetic forces should extend farther in space than gravity. ”

Even though the gravitational force between a pair of protons is orders of magnitude (~36 orders of magnitude) weaker than the electrostatic force between a pair of protons, there is a very good reason for thinking that gravity is the dominant force at anything approaching astronomical distances: Matter is electrically neutral. On the other hand, there is no such thing as negative mass.

There s also good reason to for thinking that no force is infinite in range.

“
I just came in from a binocular scan of the night sky and I must report that the nearest star to our planets just doesn't quite reach the limits of resolution of my observational gear. I grant the sun does have a measured effect.

“

Non sequitur.

Perhaps but a good non sequitor.
My developing specialty, as when a non sequitor is required, then protocol says to invent an appropriate one.:shrug:

 

[geistkiesel]

Not to mention that galaxies stay in blobby shapes or spirals due to gravity, and galactic clusters clump together due to gravity, and the large scale chains of galactic superclusters formed due to gravity, scales vastly greater than our tiny little solar system.

Electromagnetic forces extend to infinity as well, but since they cause matter to form electrically neutral clumps they don't matter much on these kinds of scales. Magnetic phenomenon play a certain role I believe even at the galactic scale, but I don't think such things are well understood. Certainly gravity is the dominant force on large scales.

How do you know this? You aren't going to BB us are you?

maybe gravity is dominant on latge scales, but certainly no infinite scales. Infinite scales have a mathematical reality, perhaps, that is lacking in observational support.

You are discussing theory only - some one taught you this - and on which your post is lacking in physical integration.

 

[geistkiesel]

Perturbations of planetary orbits due to all planets are predicted and observed but the dominant effects always come from the Sun, Jupiter and the nearest other planets. The motion of Uranus is perturbed by Jupiter, Saturn etc by a noticable amount and it was only after these were taken into account that people realised there's got to be something else tugging on the planet. Similarly, the precession of Mercury is affected by the planets and in computing the fact that Merucy's orbit precesses in a way not explainable by Newton you must include the perturbations from all other planets.

No, you must conclude . . .

No one has linked Neptune's ot Pluto's trajectory to perturbations of Earth's trajectory. Near neighbor planet's motion and trajectory may be determined but Pluto doesn't effect Earth.

 

[geistkiesel]

To add to that, the dominant source of the gravitational field in the solar system is the sun. The fact that Pluto's orbit is elliptical, with the sun at one of the foci (in accordance with the predictions of Newton) should give you a hint that the effect due to Neptune on Pluto's orbit is small, compared with the force between Pluto and the sun.

The planets' mass is 1.3 x 10^-2 of that of the sun tho the angular momentum of the planets is 3.15 x 10^43 and the angular momentum of the sun is 1.6 x 10^41kg-kg-m^2/sec. There are physical paradigms at work other than a simple gravitational model.

The sun is massively much larger than Pluto's, but so what? The gravitational effect between Pluto and Earth is observationally zilch.

 

[geistkiesel]

Gravity extends to infinity. You can see that by looking at Newtons gravitational law and taking r to be very large.

$$F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$$

You look at your arithematic model and see the results of an experiment, do you not? The religious forum is elsewhere.

 

[draqon]

How do you explain the Sun going around the galactic center without gravity?

frame dragging effect

 

[Dywyddyr]

If Uranus was the only planet in the solar system observed to be effected by Neptune

It was the most noticeably observed.

At least as far as observation establishes gravity has a limited range of effect force.

Which observations would they be?

I understand that many papers and discussion assume a huge gravitational range, but the closest stars to our solar system have never been linked with an effect on planet motion.

And how would they be? How would you separate the effects of close stars from all the other effects?

Even in our galaxy it would seem that gravity, the weakest of known forces forces, would be severely limited and that electromagnetic forces should extend farther in space than gravity.

? Aren't both gravity and E-M subject to the inverse square law? So why would one and not the other be "severely limited"?

I just came in from a binocular scan of the night sky and I must report that the nearest star to our planets just doesn't quite reach the limits of resolution of my observational gear.

B ut the range of Pluto vs the Sun is finite.

Supposition on your part.

maybe gravity is dominant on latge scales, but certainly no infinite scales.

Certainly? Based on...?
To quote you: "The religious forum is elsewhere."

Near neighbor planet's motion and trajectory may be determined but Pluto doesn't effect Earth.

Supposition again.

The sun is massively much larger than Pluto's, but so what? The gravitational effect between Pluto and Earth is observationally zilch.

Evidence?

frame dragging effect

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No one has linked Neptune's ot Pluto's trajectory to perturbations of Earth's trajectory. Near neighbor planet's motion and trajectory may be determined but Pluto doesn't effect Earth.

And your magical evidence for this claim is....?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/solarsys.html

Describes how the inclusion of Pluto and other small objects in the solar system have not only been included but are essential to knowing the long term configuration of the solar system. Another bit of ignorance from Geist.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/solarsys.html

Describes how the inclusion of Pluto and other small objects in the solar system have not only been included but are essential to knowing the long term configuration of the solar system. Another bit of ignorance from Geist.