I am not sure of whom I am discussing this with, but you all are familiar with the measure wherein the distance of 3470 km from Earth's center is where gravity is at its strongest (or equivalently, a depth of about 2900 km as measured from the Earth's surface), which is exactly what the graph...
I'm not sure why you are trying to make this out to reflect a reverse of the linear law. I already agreed that upon each stratified layer that gravity decreases with distance. However, over all [and not linearly] the gravity near the center of the planet would be greater than that near the...
Infinity really? At least lets keep the numbers real, and the 'ad infinitum' argument is unnecessary. I don't believe we will ever reach the extreme density of a black hole.
And as you have already agreed that the innermost sphere would have a greater gravitational rate of acceleration that the...
Yes again, reading comprehension:
"... the reduction of field strength inside the inner sphere will always be greater than the reduction of field strength outside of the innermost sphere [i.e. from planet surface to innermost sphere]." The use of 'than' to indicate comparison.
Per you...
Thank you. I appreciate the work you put in to come up with this answer.
Agreed, but the reduction of field strength inside the inner sphere will always be greater than the reduction of field strength outside of the innermost sphere [i.e. from planet surface to innermost sphere]. So the...
Yes, that as well. At least you came up with the answer at the very beginning of this thread.
So do the others have an answer now that they understand the question?
I always have been talking about an innermost radius of 20% the size of the original volume having a mass density that is 80% of the total volume's density. And I have been stating near the center and not at the center, all this time.
While you can take the extreme where zero distance provides...
So where a nonexistent point at the center has a value of zero, there is no gravity. And yet an object whose size is greater than zero, and at the center of the volume, is suddenly feeling the pressure of the colliding effects of a gravitational acceleration rate of greater than the rate on the...
And where you presuppose a value of zero for the radius at the center, you ignored a radius of 1 wherein the gravitational rate of acceleration of this innermost sphere is much greater than the rate for the outermost surface sphere. Sure you can always pretend to reduce anything by introducing a...
The acceleration point would be the innermost sphere with a radius which was 20% smaller and containing a mass density of appx 80% of the total volume.
The intent was not to move any goal post. The intent was to define a model, that when taken in a nonlinear matter would demonstrate a differing result from the linear model. The problem has always been clear about how the density would be distributed in the nonlinear model.
The shell theorem has to do with two mass bodies attracting. This is a single body problem which pressents a contray assumption from the liner model where the distance from the center decreases, the acceleration due to gravity also decreases. In the linear model, at the center where the distance...