# Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

river said:
But you could escape by going towards the center of the body exerting the gravitational force .

Yes, if you are an introvert, or need to isolate, , escape from the world that is advancing into an unlimited future. Most people like more space ten less. unless your are inside a hollow shell, it can really get crowded with the force of the gravitationalacceleration pressing matter in from all sides.

No

If you can sense the gravitational difference between the sides and out from the sides , then you can change position .

Out of curiosity, where did you get 7.9 km/sec figure? I had a helluva time trying to google that.
If Earth had a different density curve, the interior potential difference may actually be greater than the surface potential difference. It may be true of some of the outer planets.

A story that illustrates how I keep my 90 year old brain young, and prematurely age others. Dave C in post #685, corrected my inadvertent mistake of typing "terminal" velocity instead of "escape" velocity.
Mistakes are mere detours on the way to conclusions that may be worth millions. so
when trying to find a measurable quantity of the unmeasurable U units, I worked back to the escape speed (straight up) dave had introduced.
Turned out, that an object, dropped into a pole to pole hole, reaches terminal velocity at the Earth's center, but leaves that point with the escape velocity that bring it to a standstill at the other pole. Eureka, google has not caught on yet.
Yeah, I could like to have seen the figures of an ideal globe or shell, homogeneous, perfect, cooled hole, no spin, , but, since both of the escape velocities are on the same type body, the comparison should be valid. so:
let it be resolved that there is more gravitational energy potential on the outside than the inside.

A story that illustrates how I keep my 90 year old brain young, and prematurely age others. Dave C in post #685, corrected my inadvertent mistake of typing "terminal" velocity instead of "escape" velocity.
Mistakes are mere detours on the way to conclusions that may be worth millions. so
when trying to find a measurable quantity of the unmeasurable U units, I worked back to the escape speed (straight up) dave had introduced.
river said:
But you could escape by going towards the center of the body exerting the gravitational force .
Yeah, I could like to have seen the figures of an ideal globe or shell, homogeneous, perfect, cooled hole, no spin, , but, since both of the escape velocities are on the same type body, the comparison should be valid. so:
let it be resolved that there is more gravitational energy potential on the outside than the inside.

Turned out, that an object, dropped into a pole to pole hole, reaches terminal velocity at the Earth's center, but leaves that point with the escape velocity that bring it to a standstill at the other pole.

Seems balanced to me , nebel

Seems balanced to me , nebel

Yeah, I should have dropped the ball from a little altitude into the hole on the North pole to have it rise high enough above the ice shield of Antarctica to be able to catch or kick it away, so it will not keep swinging north to south forever., or load it onto a roacket to give it 11.2 km/s upward speed.

Yeah, I should have dropped the ball from a little altitude into the hole on the North pole to have it rise high enough above the ice shield of Antarctica to be able to catch or kick it away, so it will not keep swinging north to south forever., or load it onto a roacket to give it 11.2 km/s upward speed.

Used the well worn 'long hole' story to show that there is distinct gravity potential between inside and outside of a body, and To help visualize the effects involved, and to sink the idea that you could get a head start. or "free energy" from using the condition in a central cavity, or zero gravitational force there. You still would start with zero velocity at the surface. for Musk or Bezos to use in their launches.

The g force is the g-force at different radii, not the sum of it. You asserted (in post 579 that that sum is infinite, which it isn't, and that sum happens to be a measure of (wait for it ....) gravitational potential, not acceleration or g-force. So you've done it again, confusing the two. The g-force is the curve (illustrated by origin in first reply), not the area under the curve, which is potential, and quite finite.

Please look at the formula that is represented by the red line. it is not the g force strength at individual points at given radii as is shown in the blue line.
The red line shows the value, that the sum of the g forces would exert in a given area*** , in this case the surface of a sphere at a given radius R from the center. That value never changes with distance because both g and the surface of a sphere fall, or encrease by the square or inverse square of the Radius.
*** In Radiation there surely must be a unit that describes the dimness of an area at a distance, like photons of x energy per cm^2 ?
similarly, I am proposing such a measurement for the intensity of g per surface area. and
like the sum of the original radiant energy emitted by a source does not diminish with distance, even if the light looks dimmer at each point, so
the total sum of the strength of the g field stays the same even so, as the blue line shows, measured at different points at distances it becomes less and less.
Is 'sum of g' infinite? no it always is the same outside the surface, but it stays the same to infinity, where only a zero will settle all,
Does the 'total sum of g' still exist in full force at an infinite distance? no, because the individual point value on the blue line has become 0. nevertheless, the red line clearly shows,
there is more g force outside 1 R than inside.

Last edited:
"We long assumed particles carrying the force of gravity couldn't have mass. That's wrong – and it may mean gravity travels at different speeds across the cosmos."

If this is correct, there is even more gravity as a local force or potential outside than in the interior.
red line above lifting with distance, most gravity at the "perimeter of the universe." the #3 in the "ALMA" graph.

Last edited:
most gravity at the "perimeter of the universe."
Yes, but spread out too thinly at the edges of the universe. .....

The World of Dark Energies and Dark (mathematical) Attractions.....

Yes, but spread out too thinly at the edges of the universe.
well, if we consider the "edge" the "surface" of #3 for example, , judging by all entities, the greatest gravity strength is always just outside the surface, or edge, individual interior components's gravity field strength might be diluted at distance from the "edge", but accumulative it must be all there, and,
if gravity, gravitons have mass, there is even more added , than just existing from the central masses. and having mass they could not move at "c'.
Here is an interesting quote about "outside reach", not gravity, but magnetism:
"---The magnetic field lines extend as much as 22,500 light-years beyond the galaxy's disk--."
National Radio Astronomy Observatory. "Magnetic field of a spiral galaxy: Field lines extend far beyond galaxy's disk." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 July 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200721160739.htm>.

Last edited:
Is this thread really still going, after 730 posts? Wasn't the question answered in the first couple of pages?

Is this thread really still going, after 730 posts? Wasn't the question answered in the first couple of pages?
Yes. It was.

It has turned into a blog, a bit like Write4U's interminable, all-purpose thread about microtubules, biology in general, and police brutality.

Dark matter mimicking the low gravity field strength at the center of 2 galaxies.

"---dark matter self-interactions could push dark matter particles from the inner to the outer regions, making the inner halo "fluffier" --" cited from:

University of California - Riverside. "Physicists explain mysterious dark matter deficiency in galaxy pair: Self-interacting dark matter theory explains why two galaxies have less dark matter than others." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 September 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909132101.htm>.

smaller gravitational force = fluffier dark matter at the center

either way, there is more gravity outside than at the center inside.

"New findings from NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission suggest that the interior of the asteroid Bennu could be weaker and less dense than its outer layers -- like a crème-filled chocolate egg flying though space."
quoted from:
University of Colorado at Boulder. "Scientists peer inside an asteroid." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201008170641.htm>.

As you would expect with the gravitational field strength at it's peak at the surface. compacting pressure on small bodies are strongest there, also impact pounding.
Only with planet sized bodies comes pressure in the interior, forming denser material there, or heavier matter sinking to the center.
expect many small bodies to have denser surfaces , where their gravitational force is strongest, see post# 3 by origin.
Zero gravitational force in the center just made fluff .

Last edited:
"New findings from NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission suggest that the interior of the asteroid Bennu could be weaker and less dense than its outer layers -- like a crème-filled chocolate egg flying though space."
quoted from:
University of Colorado at Boulder. "Scientists peer inside an asteroid." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201008170641.htm>.

As you would expect with the gravitational field strength at it's peak at the surface. compacting pressure on small bodies are strongest there, also impact pounding.
Only with planet sized bodies comes pressure in the interior, forming denser material there, or heavier matter sinking to the center.
expect many small bodies to have denser surfaces , where their gravitational force is strongest, see post# 3 by origin.
Zero gravitational force in the center just made fluff .

Rotation .

Cooling as well .

Highlighted .

Where is rotation included in this theory ?

Last edited:
Zero gravitational force in the center just made fluff .
Actually speaking, there is no place in the universe where gravity is zero....
Gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance between two masses.
At the center of any mass, say the Earth for example, the pull of gravity is from all directions, hence the effect is neutralized.

Actually speaking, there is no place in the universe where gravity is zero....
Gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance between two masses.
At the center of any mass, say the Earth for example, the pull of gravity is from all directions, hence the effect is neutralized.

What effect is neutralized ?

What effect is neutralized ?
It was addressed to nebal, and I'm sure he'll understand, as it is perfectly obvious.

It was addressed to nebal, and I'm sure he'll understand, as it is perfectly obvious.

Nebal will speak for himself pad .

Nebal will speak for himself pad .
??? Was Hipparchia correct in inferring that English is your second language? Or are you just being river the troll?
Like I said, I'm sure nebal will understand what was said, since it was as plain as day....again, "Actually speaking, there is no place in the universe where gravity is zero....
Gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance between two masses.
At the center of any mass, say the Earth for example, the pull of gravity is from all directions, hence the effect is neutralized".

Or alternatively, can some other kind soul help river out?