Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?How/would the distance from a planet to its star affect the strength of its gravitational pull?How big can a moon be where you can physically jump out of its orbit, to its planet?Can a star orbit around a planet?What major event could disrupt planet Earth's orbit around the Sun?Could a habitable tidally locked planet have a day and night cycle caused by the eccentricity of its orbit?Can a dual planet have an orbit around the Sun similar to Earth's?Can one or multiple moon(s) pull the sea around my planet?What are the realistic problems of a planet orbiting too close to its sun?Can a Large Planet Orbit a Smaller Planet?The effects of gravitational pull in a solar system with a pendulum Sun

What causes the sudden spool-up sound from an F-16 when enabling afterburner?

aging parents with no investments

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

Is a vector space a subspace of itself?

Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?

Copycat chess is back

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

Lied on resume at previous job

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Filling an area between two curves

Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?

"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"

Uplifted animals have parts of their "brain" in various locations of their body. Where?

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Are cabin dividers used to "hide" the flex of the airplane?

COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?

What is it called when one voice type sings a 'solo'?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?



Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?


How/would the distance from a planet to its star affect the strength of its gravitational pull?How big can a moon be where you can physically jump out of its orbit, to its planet?Can a star orbit around a planet?What major event could disrupt planet Earth's orbit around the Sun?Could a habitable tidally locked planet have a day and night cycle caused by the eccentricity of its orbit?Can a dual planet have an orbit around the Sun similar to Earth's?Can one or multiple moon(s) pull the sea around my planet?What are the realistic problems of a planet orbiting too close to its sun?Can a Large Planet Orbit a Smaller Planet?The effects of gravitational pull in a solar system with a pendulum Sun













5












$begingroup$


As the title say, can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?



Is this explainable without magic?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
    $endgroup$
    – Spencer
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
    $endgroup$
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    16 hours ago
















5












$begingroup$


As the title say, can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?



Is this explainable without magic?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
    $endgroup$
    – Spencer
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
    $endgroup$
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    16 hours ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$


As the title say, can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?



Is this explainable without magic?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




As the title say, can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?



Is this explainable without magic?







planets science-fiction gravity solar-system rogue-planets






share|improve this question









New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago









L.Dutch

90.7k29211437




90.7k29211437






New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 21 hours ago









JaeJae

263




263




New contributor




Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jae is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
    $endgroup$
    – Spencer
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
    $endgroup$
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    16 hours ago













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
    $endgroup$
    – Spencer
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
    $endgroup$
    – Tyler S. Loeper
    16 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
$endgroup$
– Spencer
21 hours ago




$begingroup$
Are you asking for the planet's own pull on objects that are not the Sun to vary, rather than the Sun's pull on the planet or vice versa?
$endgroup$
– Spencer
21 hours ago












$begingroup$
Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
21 hours ago




$begingroup$
Well you could explain it with "sufficiently advanced technology", if you prefer. But no; most of the gravity you feel will be a factor of the mass beneath your feet, and that mass is not going to change dramatically during the year without magic, "magic" or civilisation-endingly apocalyptic events.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
21 hours ago












$begingroup$
With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
16 hours ago





$begingroup$
With an elliptical orbit, you can obviously be closer to the sun at some points than at other points, and one side of the planet will then have the sun + earths gravity, and the other, the earths gravity - suns, but this difference is likely to be small.
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
16 hours ago











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

It already happens.



Look at the schematic drawing below, where you see a planet and its Sun (not to scale), with two different places on the planet: one facing the Sun, the other on the opposite side from it.



schematic of the gravitational set up



Gravitational pull can be schematized with a vector, and the resulting pull is the result of the summation of all the pulls in a given spot.



In the place b in the picture, the pulls of the Sun and of the planet will operate in the same direction, while in a the pull from the Sun will partially counter the pull from the planet.



Therefore in b the pull will be stronger than in a.



Also, during the course of an orbit around the Sun, the distance between the two bodies changes slightly, and as you know the distance plays a role in the equation for calculating the gravitational pull $F = G cdot m_1 cdot m_2 cdot 1/r^2$.



However, the difference is normally so small that it cannot be noticed without sensitive instruments. When it becomes noticeable it means that tidal forces are so strong that the body is about to be disrupted.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    14 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    14 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    9 hours ago


















8












$begingroup$

Not easily.



An orbiting object has the feature of being in free fall, which means that objects on it are not subject to gravitational pull from the object that is being orbited, no more than a person inside an orbiting space station feel no gravitational pull from the Earth.



There is however such a thing as tidal forces. Since all parts of a planet orbits the sun at the same orbital speed, even though only the centre of mass is fulfilling orbital equations, objects on the near side experience more pull from the sun that objects on the far side, since the near side moves slower than an object in circular orbit at that distance from the sun would, while the far side moves faster than an object at that side would. This is typically too little to be noticeable by people on Earth, though one-third of the tidal forecs creating ocean tides stems from the sun.



To make it word as you want, you would need the planet to be either far closer to its sun, compared to its mass, or being far bigger (creating a greater tidal difference between near and far side). If the planet has slow rotation, e.g. only having one day and night per orbit, it may be experienced as having lower gravity during the day than during the night. Or if the planet has a very eccentric orbit, the gravity differences between night and day will be experienced as greater the closer the planet is to the sun.



The major problem here is that any tidal force strong enough to be felt as noticably different gravitational pull will very likely tear the planet apart, not to mention creating extremely high and low tides. The latter may not be a problem if the entire surface of the planet is ocean (or if the planet is very plastic), since the inhabitants would move with the surface. Another result of such high gravitational pull is however that the planet will most likely be tidally locked, meaning it will always have the same tide facing the sun, same as our moon always has the same side facing the Earth.



You would need a planet that is made of extremely strong and/or very plastic material to make your idea work, and even then, there are likely to be associated problems such as extreme tides and extreme temperature differences between day and night.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    I can think of a somewhat contrived way that this can happen, but it will be a smaller effect than you'd probably like, and with severe restrictions on the planet's climate and types of civilizations that could live there.



    The idea is that your planet could be in a highly elliptical orbit that causes it to experience large temperature changes throughout the year. This in turn could cause the planet to expand and contract, thus changing its surface gravity (i.e. when the planet is closer to the sun, it would have a lower gravity on the surface, because its surface is physically farther away from its own center of mass).



    Thermal expansion alone won't get you this effect on a rocky planet - solid volumes tend to increase only by about 1% at most even when subjected to temperature changes of 100 K (which is where you should probably draw the line as far as this planet being habitable is concerned). One workaround could be for the planet to have pockets of gas throughout its interior; when the planet heats up, pressure from those pockets could inflate the entire planet like a balloon. However, I'm doubtful that you could get more than a percent or two from this either, and it also comes with more details that need to be addressed, like why geological activity doesn't push most of this gas to the surface.



    No, if you want to go the thermal expansion route, the best way I can think of is to have floating cities above a low-mass, gaseous planet (a gas dwarf). This is all conjecture since there are no confirmed gas dwarf exoplanets, but one with the mass of Earth, similar to Kepler-138d, could ostensibly be 80% gas by volume (60% by radius). If this planet's average temperature were to range from 250 K to 300 K according to the time of year, let's say, then its radius would increase by about 4% and its gravity would decrease by roughly 7%.*



    *These are back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming isobaric expansion, which isn't entirely valid when you're dealing with planet-scale gravitational effects. But the volume difference is only 20%, so it's probably close enough.



    Not a huge effect, but definitely noticeable. Could be an interesting way to have the effect you're looking for, though the sky-city-on-a-gas-planet thing might be too specific for the setting you have in mind.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      14 hours ago


















    1












    $begingroup$

    In order to have changing gravitation, you either need changing masses or changing distances.



    Changing masses are only possible if mass becomes energy, for which you need rare phenomenons and which would not depend on orbit and not be cyclical.



    But going for changing distances there are plenty of options, of which some have already been mentioned :



    1. Have an elliptic orbit - the closer your planet is to the sun, the brighter it is on the surface and the higher is gravity (Image Source : Wikipedia)

    (see Wikipedia)



    1. Have a moving sun - such as a sun and a black hole "surrounding" each other, or other complex constellations leading to your sun itself orbiting something else, following a certain course such that it passes (Image Source : same Wikipedia page)

    Try to think of the following white circles as a sun and another object.
    As you can see, this leaves us with an interesting orbit for your sun.
    If you now had a your planet orbiting the two objects, the distances would of course change.



    see Wikipedia



    And, last but not least, a sun next to a black hole simply gives darn picturesque images (Image source : https://phys.org/news/2010-07-black-hole-big.html, see for original source)



    Beautiful




    Alternatively, you can have other objects in space affecting gravity, such as large gas planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point



    For instance, the tidal forces on our earth are caused by our moon.



    The bigger the objects and the higher the distance changes, the higher the impact on gravity on your planet is going to be.



    In the meantime, just enjoy the orbit between Pluto and Charon (Image source : NASA, I assume - https://imgur.com/LgWwoQh) :
    mhm






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      0












      $begingroup$

      You could change the distance relation of the gravitational force field. In the real world it decreases quadratic with distance F=F(r^2) but you can change that to any function you like. Something higher order like r^3 and above will have more turning points. You could put your planet in a distant of such a turning point and depending on your coefficients the resulting gravitation on the closer to further sunside would be different. Does that make sense?






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$




















        0












        $begingroup$

        A single planet won't have a noticeable difference unless you can change its mass or shape wildly.



        However, a second planet orbiting within another plane, the opposite rotation, or forming a binary pair could apply great additional gravitational forces at different positions in the first planet's orbit.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "579"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Jae is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143485%2fcan-a-planet-have-a-different-gravitational-pull-depending-on-its-location-in-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes








          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9












          $begingroup$

          It already happens.



          Look at the schematic drawing below, where you see a planet and its Sun (not to scale), with two different places on the planet: one facing the Sun, the other on the opposite side from it.



          schematic of the gravitational set up



          Gravitational pull can be schematized with a vector, and the resulting pull is the result of the summation of all the pulls in a given spot.



          In the place b in the picture, the pulls of the Sun and of the planet will operate in the same direction, while in a the pull from the Sun will partially counter the pull from the planet.



          Therefore in b the pull will be stronger than in a.



          Also, during the course of an orbit around the Sun, the distance between the two bodies changes slightly, and as you know the distance plays a role in the equation for calculating the gravitational pull $F = G cdot m_1 cdot m_2 cdot 1/r^2$.



          However, the difference is normally so small that it cannot be noticed without sensitive instruments. When it becomes noticeable it means that tidal forces are so strong that the body is about to be disrupted.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
            $endgroup$
            – L.Dutch
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            9 hours ago















          9












          $begingroup$

          It already happens.



          Look at the schematic drawing below, where you see a planet and its Sun (not to scale), with two different places on the planet: one facing the Sun, the other on the opposite side from it.



          schematic of the gravitational set up



          Gravitational pull can be schematized with a vector, and the resulting pull is the result of the summation of all the pulls in a given spot.



          In the place b in the picture, the pulls of the Sun and of the planet will operate in the same direction, while in a the pull from the Sun will partially counter the pull from the planet.



          Therefore in b the pull will be stronger than in a.



          Also, during the course of an orbit around the Sun, the distance between the two bodies changes slightly, and as you know the distance plays a role in the equation for calculating the gravitational pull $F = G cdot m_1 cdot m_2 cdot 1/r^2$.



          However, the difference is normally so small that it cannot be noticed without sensitive instruments. When it becomes noticeable it means that tidal forces are so strong that the body is about to be disrupted.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
            $endgroup$
            – L.Dutch
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            9 hours ago













          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          It already happens.



          Look at the schematic drawing below, where you see a planet and its Sun (not to scale), with two different places on the planet: one facing the Sun, the other on the opposite side from it.



          schematic of the gravitational set up



          Gravitational pull can be schematized with a vector, and the resulting pull is the result of the summation of all the pulls in a given spot.



          In the place b in the picture, the pulls of the Sun and of the planet will operate in the same direction, while in a the pull from the Sun will partially counter the pull from the planet.



          Therefore in b the pull will be stronger than in a.



          Also, during the course of an orbit around the Sun, the distance between the two bodies changes slightly, and as you know the distance plays a role in the equation for calculating the gravitational pull $F = G cdot m_1 cdot m_2 cdot 1/r^2$.



          However, the difference is normally so small that it cannot be noticed without sensitive instruments. When it becomes noticeable it means that tidal forces are so strong that the body is about to be disrupted.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          It already happens.



          Look at the schematic drawing below, where you see a planet and its Sun (not to scale), with two different places on the planet: one facing the Sun, the other on the opposite side from it.



          schematic of the gravitational set up



          Gravitational pull can be schematized with a vector, and the resulting pull is the result of the summation of all the pulls in a given spot.



          In the place b in the picture, the pulls of the Sun and of the planet will operate in the same direction, while in a the pull from the Sun will partially counter the pull from the planet.



          Therefore in b the pull will be stronger than in a.



          Also, during the course of an orbit around the Sun, the distance between the two bodies changes slightly, and as you know the distance plays a role in the equation for calculating the gravitational pull $F = G cdot m_1 cdot m_2 cdot 1/r^2$.



          However, the difference is normally so small that it cannot be noticed without sensitive instruments. When it becomes noticeable it means that tidal forces are so strong that the body is about to be disrupted.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 14 hours ago

























          answered 20 hours ago









          L.DutchL.Dutch

          90.7k29211437




          90.7k29211437







          • 5




            $begingroup$
            This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
            $endgroup$
            – L.Dutch
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            9 hours ago












          • 5




            $begingroup$
            This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
            $endgroup$
            – L.Dutch
            14 hours ago






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
            $endgroup$
            – Tim B
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            14 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            9 hours ago







          5




          5




          $begingroup$
          This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          This answer is begging to mention tides, which (at measurable levels) makes the measured "gravity" towards the center of the planet equal at b and a, and less than the gravity at the top and bottom of the planet.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          14 hours ago




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
          $endgroup$
          – L.Dutch
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Yakk, an entire ocean to notice a shift of few meters (at most) falls into my definition of "sensitive instrument"
          $endgroup$
          – L.Dutch
          14 hours ago




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Note that the pull in b is compensated for by increase centripetal effect from the orbit so you get roughly equal net effective gravity at a and b but increased effective gravity at the poles. The differences are very small but are why you get 2 tidal bulges (one towards the moon, one away from the moon) and neep/spring tides depending on whether the sun's two tidal bulges are increasing or reducing the moon's.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B
          14 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @TimB You don't get 2 tidal bulges in Earth's ocean. You get tides with a period of 12 hours due to the forcing function. The 2 tidal bulges image is a lie we tell to children. Here are the north sea tides, they are 12 hour period but they aren't sloshing around the planet.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          14 hours ago




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          9 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @jab tides on earth are sloshing, with a forcing effect caused by the moon so they are mostly 12 hour cycles. There isn't nearly enough time for a whole-planet ocean bulge to form, so you get local "circular" tides that slosh around a nexus whose depth mostly does not change. In some areas you actually get 24 hour tides, not 12 hour ones. The North Sea has particularly fun tides, with multiple nexuses interacting with each other.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          9 hours ago











          8












          $begingroup$

          Not easily.



          An orbiting object has the feature of being in free fall, which means that objects on it are not subject to gravitational pull from the object that is being orbited, no more than a person inside an orbiting space station feel no gravitational pull from the Earth.



          There is however such a thing as tidal forces. Since all parts of a planet orbits the sun at the same orbital speed, even though only the centre of mass is fulfilling orbital equations, objects on the near side experience more pull from the sun that objects on the far side, since the near side moves slower than an object in circular orbit at that distance from the sun would, while the far side moves faster than an object at that side would. This is typically too little to be noticeable by people on Earth, though one-third of the tidal forecs creating ocean tides stems from the sun.



          To make it word as you want, you would need the planet to be either far closer to its sun, compared to its mass, or being far bigger (creating a greater tidal difference between near and far side). If the planet has slow rotation, e.g. only having one day and night per orbit, it may be experienced as having lower gravity during the day than during the night. Or if the planet has a very eccentric orbit, the gravity differences between night and day will be experienced as greater the closer the planet is to the sun.



          The major problem here is that any tidal force strong enough to be felt as noticably different gravitational pull will very likely tear the planet apart, not to mention creating extremely high and low tides. The latter may not be a problem if the entire surface of the planet is ocean (or if the planet is very plastic), since the inhabitants would move with the surface. Another result of such high gravitational pull is however that the planet will most likely be tidally locked, meaning it will always have the same tide facing the sun, same as our moon always has the same side facing the Earth.



          You would need a planet that is made of extremely strong and/or very plastic material to make your idea work, and even then, there are likely to be associated problems such as extreme tides and extreme temperature differences between day and night.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            8












            $begingroup$

            Not easily.



            An orbiting object has the feature of being in free fall, which means that objects on it are not subject to gravitational pull from the object that is being orbited, no more than a person inside an orbiting space station feel no gravitational pull from the Earth.



            There is however such a thing as tidal forces. Since all parts of a planet orbits the sun at the same orbital speed, even though only the centre of mass is fulfilling orbital equations, objects on the near side experience more pull from the sun that objects on the far side, since the near side moves slower than an object in circular orbit at that distance from the sun would, while the far side moves faster than an object at that side would. This is typically too little to be noticeable by people on Earth, though one-third of the tidal forecs creating ocean tides stems from the sun.



            To make it word as you want, you would need the planet to be either far closer to its sun, compared to its mass, or being far bigger (creating a greater tidal difference between near and far side). If the planet has slow rotation, e.g. only having one day and night per orbit, it may be experienced as having lower gravity during the day than during the night. Or if the planet has a very eccentric orbit, the gravity differences between night and day will be experienced as greater the closer the planet is to the sun.



            The major problem here is that any tidal force strong enough to be felt as noticably different gravitational pull will very likely tear the planet apart, not to mention creating extremely high and low tides. The latter may not be a problem if the entire surface of the planet is ocean (or if the planet is very plastic), since the inhabitants would move with the surface. Another result of such high gravitational pull is however that the planet will most likely be tidally locked, meaning it will always have the same tide facing the sun, same as our moon always has the same side facing the Earth.



            You would need a planet that is made of extremely strong and/or very plastic material to make your idea work, and even then, there are likely to be associated problems such as extreme tides and extreme temperature differences between day and night.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$















              8












              8








              8





              $begingroup$

              Not easily.



              An orbiting object has the feature of being in free fall, which means that objects on it are not subject to gravitational pull from the object that is being orbited, no more than a person inside an orbiting space station feel no gravitational pull from the Earth.



              There is however such a thing as tidal forces. Since all parts of a planet orbits the sun at the same orbital speed, even though only the centre of mass is fulfilling orbital equations, objects on the near side experience more pull from the sun that objects on the far side, since the near side moves slower than an object in circular orbit at that distance from the sun would, while the far side moves faster than an object at that side would. This is typically too little to be noticeable by people on Earth, though one-third of the tidal forecs creating ocean tides stems from the sun.



              To make it word as you want, you would need the planet to be either far closer to its sun, compared to its mass, or being far bigger (creating a greater tidal difference between near and far side). If the planet has slow rotation, e.g. only having one day and night per orbit, it may be experienced as having lower gravity during the day than during the night. Or if the planet has a very eccentric orbit, the gravity differences between night and day will be experienced as greater the closer the planet is to the sun.



              The major problem here is that any tidal force strong enough to be felt as noticably different gravitational pull will very likely tear the planet apart, not to mention creating extremely high and low tides. The latter may not be a problem if the entire surface of the planet is ocean (or if the planet is very plastic), since the inhabitants would move with the surface. Another result of such high gravitational pull is however that the planet will most likely be tidally locked, meaning it will always have the same tide facing the sun, same as our moon always has the same side facing the Earth.



              You would need a planet that is made of extremely strong and/or very plastic material to make your idea work, and even then, there are likely to be associated problems such as extreme tides and extreme temperature differences between day and night.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Not easily.



              An orbiting object has the feature of being in free fall, which means that objects on it are not subject to gravitational pull from the object that is being orbited, no more than a person inside an orbiting space station feel no gravitational pull from the Earth.



              There is however such a thing as tidal forces. Since all parts of a planet orbits the sun at the same orbital speed, even though only the centre of mass is fulfilling orbital equations, objects on the near side experience more pull from the sun that objects on the far side, since the near side moves slower than an object in circular orbit at that distance from the sun would, while the far side moves faster than an object at that side would. This is typically too little to be noticeable by people on Earth, though one-third of the tidal forecs creating ocean tides stems from the sun.



              To make it word as you want, you would need the planet to be either far closer to its sun, compared to its mass, or being far bigger (creating a greater tidal difference between near and far side). If the planet has slow rotation, e.g. only having one day and night per orbit, it may be experienced as having lower gravity during the day than during the night. Or if the planet has a very eccentric orbit, the gravity differences between night and day will be experienced as greater the closer the planet is to the sun.



              The major problem here is that any tidal force strong enough to be felt as noticably different gravitational pull will very likely tear the planet apart, not to mention creating extremely high and low tides. The latter may not be a problem if the entire surface of the planet is ocean (or if the planet is very plastic), since the inhabitants would move with the surface. Another result of such high gravitational pull is however that the planet will most likely be tidally locked, meaning it will always have the same tide facing the sun, same as our moon always has the same side facing the Earth.



              You would need a planet that is made of extremely strong and/or very plastic material to make your idea work, and even then, there are likely to be associated problems such as extreme tides and extreme temperature differences between day and night.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 20 hours ago









              Klaus Æ. MogensenKlaus Æ. Mogensen

              969136




              969136





















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  I can think of a somewhat contrived way that this can happen, but it will be a smaller effect than you'd probably like, and with severe restrictions on the planet's climate and types of civilizations that could live there.



                  The idea is that your planet could be in a highly elliptical orbit that causes it to experience large temperature changes throughout the year. This in turn could cause the planet to expand and contract, thus changing its surface gravity (i.e. when the planet is closer to the sun, it would have a lower gravity on the surface, because its surface is physically farther away from its own center of mass).



                  Thermal expansion alone won't get you this effect on a rocky planet - solid volumes tend to increase only by about 1% at most even when subjected to temperature changes of 100 K (which is where you should probably draw the line as far as this planet being habitable is concerned). One workaround could be for the planet to have pockets of gas throughout its interior; when the planet heats up, pressure from those pockets could inflate the entire planet like a balloon. However, I'm doubtful that you could get more than a percent or two from this either, and it also comes with more details that need to be addressed, like why geological activity doesn't push most of this gas to the surface.



                  No, if you want to go the thermal expansion route, the best way I can think of is to have floating cities above a low-mass, gaseous planet (a gas dwarf). This is all conjecture since there are no confirmed gas dwarf exoplanets, but one with the mass of Earth, similar to Kepler-138d, could ostensibly be 80% gas by volume (60% by radius). If this planet's average temperature were to range from 250 K to 300 K according to the time of year, let's say, then its radius would increase by about 4% and its gravity would decrease by roughly 7%.*



                  *These are back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming isobaric expansion, which isn't entirely valid when you're dealing with planet-scale gravitational effects. But the volume difference is only 20%, so it's probably close enough.



                  Not a huge effect, but definitely noticeable. Could be an interesting way to have the effect you're looking for, though the sky-city-on-a-gas-planet thing might be too specific for the setting you have in mind.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$












                  • $begingroup$
                    An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tim B
                    14 hours ago















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  I can think of a somewhat contrived way that this can happen, but it will be a smaller effect than you'd probably like, and with severe restrictions on the planet's climate and types of civilizations that could live there.



                  The idea is that your planet could be in a highly elliptical orbit that causes it to experience large temperature changes throughout the year. This in turn could cause the planet to expand and contract, thus changing its surface gravity (i.e. when the planet is closer to the sun, it would have a lower gravity on the surface, because its surface is physically farther away from its own center of mass).



                  Thermal expansion alone won't get you this effect on a rocky planet - solid volumes tend to increase only by about 1% at most even when subjected to temperature changes of 100 K (which is where you should probably draw the line as far as this planet being habitable is concerned). One workaround could be for the planet to have pockets of gas throughout its interior; when the planet heats up, pressure from those pockets could inflate the entire planet like a balloon. However, I'm doubtful that you could get more than a percent or two from this either, and it also comes with more details that need to be addressed, like why geological activity doesn't push most of this gas to the surface.



                  No, if you want to go the thermal expansion route, the best way I can think of is to have floating cities above a low-mass, gaseous planet (a gas dwarf). This is all conjecture since there are no confirmed gas dwarf exoplanets, but one with the mass of Earth, similar to Kepler-138d, could ostensibly be 80% gas by volume (60% by radius). If this planet's average temperature were to range from 250 K to 300 K according to the time of year, let's say, then its radius would increase by about 4% and its gravity would decrease by roughly 7%.*



                  *These are back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming isobaric expansion, which isn't entirely valid when you're dealing with planet-scale gravitational effects. But the volume difference is only 20%, so it's probably close enough.



                  Not a huge effect, but definitely noticeable. Could be an interesting way to have the effect you're looking for, though the sky-city-on-a-gas-planet thing might be too specific for the setting you have in mind.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$












                  • $begingroup$
                    An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tim B
                    14 hours ago













                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  I can think of a somewhat contrived way that this can happen, but it will be a smaller effect than you'd probably like, and with severe restrictions on the planet's climate and types of civilizations that could live there.



                  The idea is that your planet could be in a highly elliptical orbit that causes it to experience large temperature changes throughout the year. This in turn could cause the planet to expand and contract, thus changing its surface gravity (i.e. when the planet is closer to the sun, it would have a lower gravity on the surface, because its surface is physically farther away from its own center of mass).



                  Thermal expansion alone won't get you this effect on a rocky planet - solid volumes tend to increase only by about 1% at most even when subjected to temperature changes of 100 K (which is where you should probably draw the line as far as this planet being habitable is concerned). One workaround could be for the planet to have pockets of gas throughout its interior; when the planet heats up, pressure from those pockets could inflate the entire planet like a balloon. However, I'm doubtful that you could get more than a percent or two from this either, and it also comes with more details that need to be addressed, like why geological activity doesn't push most of this gas to the surface.



                  No, if you want to go the thermal expansion route, the best way I can think of is to have floating cities above a low-mass, gaseous planet (a gas dwarf). This is all conjecture since there are no confirmed gas dwarf exoplanets, but one with the mass of Earth, similar to Kepler-138d, could ostensibly be 80% gas by volume (60% by radius). If this planet's average temperature were to range from 250 K to 300 K according to the time of year, let's say, then its radius would increase by about 4% and its gravity would decrease by roughly 7%.*



                  *These are back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming isobaric expansion, which isn't entirely valid when you're dealing with planet-scale gravitational effects. But the volume difference is only 20%, so it's probably close enough.



                  Not a huge effect, but definitely noticeable. Could be an interesting way to have the effect you're looking for, though the sky-city-on-a-gas-planet thing might be too specific for the setting you have in mind.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  I can think of a somewhat contrived way that this can happen, but it will be a smaller effect than you'd probably like, and with severe restrictions on the planet's climate and types of civilizations that could live there.



                  The idea is that your planet could be in a highly elliptical orbit that causes it to experience large temperature changes throughout the year. This in turn could cause the planet to expand and contract, thus changing its surface gravity (i.e. when the planet is closer to the sun, it would have a lower gravity on the surface, because its surface is physically farther away from its own center of mass).



                  Thermal expansion alone won't get you this effect on a rocky planet - solid volumes tend to increase only by about 1% at most even when subjected to temperature changes of 100 K (which is where you should probably draw the line as far as this planet being habitable is concerned). One workaround could be for the planet to have pockets of gas throughout its interior; when the planet heats up, pressure from those pockets could inflate the entire planet like a balloon. However, I'm doubtful that you could get more than a percent or two from this either, and it also comes with more details that need to be addressed, like why geological activity doesn't push most of this gas to the surface.



                  No, if you want to go the thermal expansion route, the best way I can think of is to have floating cities above a low-mass, gaseous planet (a gas dwarf). This is all conjecture since there are no confirmed gas dwarf exoplanets, but one with the mass of Earth, similar to Kepler-138d, could ostensibly be 80% gas by volume (60% by radius). If this planet's average temperature were to range from 250 K to 300 K according to the time of year, let's say, then its radius would increase by about 4% and its gravity would decrease by roughly 7%.*



                  *These are back-of-the-envelope calculations assuming isobaric expansion, which isn't entirely valid when you're dealing with planet-scale gravitational effects. But the volume difference is only 20%, so it's probably close enough.



                  Not a huge effect, but definitely noticeable. Could be an interesting way to have the effect you're looking for, though the sky-city-on-a-gas-planet thing might be too specific for the setting you have in mind.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 17 hours ago









                  Gilad MGilad M

                  514




                  514




                  New contributor




                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Gilad M is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.











                  • $begingroup$
                    An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tim B
                    14 hours ago
















                  • $begingroup$
                    An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tim B
                    14 hours ago















                  $begingroup$
                  An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Tim B
                  14 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  An excellent suggestion, this is an interesting idea.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Tim B
                  14 hours ago











                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  In order to have changing gravitation, you either need changing masses or changing distances.



                  Changing masses are only possible if mass becomes energy, for which you need rare phenomenons and which would not depend on orbit and not be cyclical.



                  But going for changing distances there are plenty of options, of which some have already been mentioned :



                  1. Have an elliptic orbit - the closer your planet is to the sun, the brighter it is on the surface and the higher is gravity (Image Source : Wikipedia)

                  (see Wikipedia)



                  1. Have a moving sun - such as a sun and a black hole "surrounding" each other, or other complex constellations leading to your sun itself orbiting something else, following a certain course such that it passes (Image Source : same Wikipedia page)

                  Try to think of the following white circles as a sun and another object.
                  As you can see, this leaves us with an interesting orbit for your sun.
                  If you now had a your planet orbiting the two objects, the distances would of course change.



                  see Wikipedia



                  And, last but not least, a sun next to a black hole simply gives darn picturesque images (Image source : https://phys.org/news/2010-07-black-hole-big.html, see for original source)



                  Beautiful




                  Alternatively, you can have other objects in space affecting gravity, such as large gas planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point



                  For instance, the tidal forces on our earth are caused by our moon.



                  The bigger the objects and the higher the distance changes, the higher the impact on gravity on your planet is going to be.



                  In the meantime, just enjoy the orbit between Pluto and Charon (Image source : NASA, I assume - https://imgur.com/LgWwoQh) :
                  mhm






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$

















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    In order to have changing gravitation, you either need changing masses or changing distances.



                    Changing masses are only possible if mass becomes energy, for which you need rare phenomenons and which would not depend on orbit and not be cyclical.



                    But going for changing distances there are plenty of options, of which some have already been mentioned :



                    1. Have an elliptic orbit - the closer your planet is to the sun, the brighter it is on the surface and the higher is gravity (Image Source : Wikipedia)

                    (see Wikipedia)



                    1. Have a moving sun - such as a sun and a black hole "surrounding" each other, or other complex constellations leading to your sun itself orbiting something else, following a certain course such that it passes (Image Source : same Wikipedia page)

                    Try to think of the following white circles as a sun and another object.
                    As you can see, this leaves us with an interesting orbit for your sun.
                    If you now had a your planet orbiting the two objects, the distances would of course change.



                    see Wikipedia



                    And, last but not least, a sun next to a black hole simply gives darn picturesque images (Image source : https://phys.org/news/2010-07-black-hole-big.html, see for original source)



                    Beautiful




                    Alternatively, you can have other objects in space affecting gravity, such as large gas planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point



                    For instance, the tidal forces on our earth are caused by our moon.



                    The bigger the objects and the higher the distance changes, the higher the impact on gravity on your planet is going to be.



                    In the meantime, just enjoy the orbit between Pluto and Charon (Image source : NASA, I assume - https://imgur.com/LgWwoQh) :
                    mhm






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      In order to have changing gravitation, you either need changing masses or changing distances.



                      Changing masses are only possible if mass becomes energy, for which you need rare phenomenons and which would not depend on orbit and not be cyclical.



                      But going for changing distances there are plenty of options, of which some have already been mentioned :



                      1. Have an elliptic orbit - the closer your planet is to the sun, the brighter it is on the surface and the higher is gravity (Image Source : Wikipedia)

                      (see Wikipedia)



                      1. Have a moving sun - such as a sun and a black hole "surrounding" each other, or other complex constellations leading to your sun itself orbiting something else, following a certain course such that it passes (Image Source : same Wikipedia page)

                      Try to think of the following white circles as a sun and another object.
                      As you can see, this leaves us with an interesting orbit for your sun.
                      If you now had a your planet orbiting the two objects, the distances would of course change.



                      see Wikipedia



                      And, last but not least, a sun next to a black hole simply gives darn picturesque images (Image source : https://phys.org/news/2010-07-black-hole-big.html, see for original source)



                      Beautiful




                      Alternatively, you can have other objects in space affecting gravity, such as large gas planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point



                      For instance, the tidal forces on our earth are caused by our moon.



                      The bigger the objects and the higher the distance changes, the higher the impact on gravity on your planet is going to be.



                      In the meantime, just enjoy the orbit between Pluto and Charon (Image source : NASA, I assume - https://imgur.com/LgWwoQh) :
                      mhm






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      In order to have changing gravitation, you either need changing masses or changing distances.



                      Changing masses are only possible if mass becomes energy, for which you need rare phenomenons and which would not depend on orbit and not be cyclical.



                      But going for changing distances there are plenty of options, of which some have already been mentioned :



                      1. Have an elliptic orbit - the closer your planet is to the sun, the brighter it is on the surface and the higher is gravity (Image Source : Wikipedia)

                      (see Wikipedia)



                      1. Have a moving sun - such as a sun and a black hole "surrounding" each other, or other complex constellations leading to your sun itself orbiting something else, following a certain course such that it passes (Image Source : same Wikipedia page)

                      Try to think of the following white circles as a sun and another object.
                      As you can see, this leaves us with an interesting orbit for your sun.
                      If you now had a your planet orbiting the two objects, the distances would of course change.



                      see Wikipedia



                      And, last but not least, a sun next to a black hole simply gives darn picturesque images (Image source : https://phys.org/news/2010-07-black-hole-big.html, see for original source)



                      Beautiful




                      Alternatively, you can have other objects in space affecting gravity, such as large gas planets - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point



                      For instance, the tidal forces on our earth are caused by our moon.



                      The bigger the objects and the higher the distance changes, the higher the impact on gravity on your planet is going to be.



                      In the meantime, just enjoy the orbit between Pluto and Charon (Image source : NASA, I assume - https://imgur.com/LgWwoQh) :
                      mhm







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 11 hours ago









                      LMDLMD

                      2845




                      2845





















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          You could change the distance relation of the gravitational force field. In the real world it decreases quadratic with distance F=F(r^2) but you can change that to any function you like. Something higher order like r^3 and above will have more turning points. You could put your planet in a distant of such a turning point and depending on your coefficients the resulting gravitation on the closer to further sunside would be different. Does that make sense?






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          $endgroup$

















                            0












                            $begingroup$

                            You could change the distance relation of the gravitational force field. In the real world it decreases quadratic with distance F=F(r^2) but you can change that to any function you like. Something higher order like r^3 and above will have more turning points. You could put your planet in a distant of such a turning point and depending on your coefficients the resulting gravitation on the closer to further sunside would be different. Does that make sense?






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            $endgroup$















                              0












                              0








                              0





                              $begingroup$

                              You could change the distance relation of the gravitational force field. In the real world it decreases quadratic with distance F=F(r^2) but you can change that to any function you like. Something higher order like r^3 and above will have more turning points. You could put your planet in a distant of such a turning point and depending on your coefficients the resulting gravitation on the closer to further sunside would be different. Does that make sense?






                              share|improve this answer








                              New contributor




                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.






                              $endgroup$



                              You could change the distance relation of the gravitational force field. In the real world it decreases quadratic with distance F=F(r^2) but you can change that to any function you like. Something higher order like r^3 and above will have more turning points. You could put your planet in a distant of such a turning point and depending on your coefficients the resulting gravitation on the closer to further sunside would be different. Does that make sense?







                              share|improve this answer








                              New contributor




                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer






                              New contributor




                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.









                              answered 14 hours ago









                              MartinMartin

                              1




                              1




                              New contributor




                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.





                              New contributor





                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.






                              Martin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                              Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  A single planet won't have a noticeable difference unless you can change its mass or shape wildly.



                                  However, a second planet orbiting within another plane, the opposite rotation, or forming a binary pair could apply great additional gravitational forces at different positions in the first planet's orbit.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$

















                                    0












                                    $begingroup$

                                    A single planet won't have a noticeable difference unless you can change its mass or shape wildly.



                                    However, a second planet orbiting within another plane, the opposite rotation, or forming a binary pair could apply great additional gravitational forces at different positions in the first planet's orbit.






                                    share|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$















                                      0












                                      0








                                      0





                                      $begingroup$

                                      A single planet won't have a noticeable difference unless you can change its mass or shape wildly.



                                      However, a second planet orbiting within another plane, the opposite rotation, or forming a binary pair could apply great additional gravitational forces at different positions in the first planet's orbit.






                                      share|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      A single planet won't have a noticeable difference unless you can change its mass or shape wildly.



                                      However, a second planet orbiting within another plane, the opposite rotation, or forming a binary pair could apply great additional gravitational forces at different positions in the first planet's orbit.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 11 hours ago









                                      ti7ti7

                                      1154




                                      1154




















                                          Jae is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Jae is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Jae is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                          Jae is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143485%2fcan-a-planet-have-a-different-gravitational-pull-depending-on-its-location-in-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                                          Беларусь Змест Назва Гісторыя Геаграфія Сімволіка Дзяржаўны лад Палітычныя партыі Міжнароднае становішча і знешняя палітыка Адміністрацыйны падзел Насельніцтва Эканоміка Культура і грамадства Сацыяльная сфера Узброеныя сілы Заўвагі Літаратура Спасылкі НавігацыяHGЯOiТоп-2011 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2013 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2016 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2017 г. (па версіі ej.by)Нацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьШчыльнасць насельніцтва па краінахhttp://naviny.by/rubrics/society/2011/09/16/ic_articles_116_175144/А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Спробы засялення краю неандэртальскім чалавекам.І ў Менску былі мамантыА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіГ. Штыхаў. Балты і славяне ў VI—VIII стст.М. Клімаў. Полацкае княства ў IX—XI стст.Г. Штыхаў, В. Ляўко. Палітычная гісторыя Полацкай зямліГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахБеларускія землі ў складзе Вялікага Княства ЛітоўскагаЛюблінская унія 1569 г."The Early Stages of Independence"Zapomniane prawdy25 гадоў таму было аб'яўлена, што Язэп Пілсудскі — беларус (фота)Наша вадаДакументы ЧАЭС: Забруджванне тэрыторыі Беларусі « ЧАЭС Зона адчужэнняСведения о политических партиях, зарегистрированных в Республике Беларусь // Министерство юстиции Республики БеларусьСтатыстычны бюлетэнь „Полаўзроставая структура насельніцтва Рэспублікі Беларусь на 1 студзеня 2012 года і сярэднегадовая колькасць насельніцтва за 2011 год“Индекс человеческого развития Беларуси — не было бы нижеБеларусь занимает первое место в СНГ по индексу развития с учетом гендерного факцёраНацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьКанстытуцыя РБ. Артыкул 17Трансфармацыйныя задачы БеларусіВыйсце з крызісу — далейшае рэфармаванне Беларускі рубель — сусветны лідар па дэвальвацыяхПра змену коштаў у кастрычніку 2011 г.Бядней за беларусаў у СНД толькі таджыкіСярэдні заробак у верасні дасягнуў 2,26 мільёна рублёўЭканомікаГаласуем за ТОП-100 беларускай прозыСучасныя беларускія мастакіАрхитектура Беларуси BELARUS.BYА. Каханоўскі. Культура Беларусі ўсярэдзіне XVII—XVIII ст.Анталогія беларускай народнай песні, гуказапісы спеваўБеларускія Музычныя IнструментыБеларускі рок, які мы страцілі. Топ-10 гуртоў«Мясцовы час» — нязгаслая легенда беларускай рок-музыкіСЯРГЕЙ БУДКІН. МЫ НЯ ЗНАЕМ СВАЁЙ МУЗЫКІМ. А. Каладзінскі. НАРОДНЫ ТЭАТРМагнацкія культурныя цэнтрыПублічная дыскусія «Беларуская новая пьеса: без беларускай мовы ці беларуская?»Беларускія драматургі па-ранейшаму лепш ставяцца за мяжой, чым на радзіме«Працэс незалежнага кіно пайшоў, і дзяржаву турбуе яго непадкантрольнасць»Беларускія філосафы ў пошуках прасторыВсе идём в библиотекуАрхіваванаАб Нацыянальнай праграме даследавання і выкарыстання касмічнай прасторы ў мірных мэтах на 2008—2012 гадыУ космас — разам.У суседнім з Барысаўскім раёне пабудуюць Камандна-вымяральны пунктСвяты і абрады беларусаў«Мірныя бульбашы з малой краіны» — 5 непраўдзівых стэрэатыпаў пра БеларусьМ. Раманюк. Беларускае народнае адзеннеУ Беларусі скарачаецца колькасць злачынстваўЛукашэнка незадаволены мінскімі ўладамі Крадзяжы складаюць у Мінску каля 70% злачынстваў Узровень злачыннасці ў Мінскай вобласці — адзін з самых высокіх у краіне Генпракуратура аналізуе стан са злачыннасцю ў Беларусі па каэфіцыенце злачыннасці У Беларусі стабілізавалася крымінагеннае становішча, лічыць генпракурорЗамежнікі сталі здзяйсняць у Беларусі больш злачынстваўМУС Беларусі турбуе рост рэцыдыўнай злачыннасціЯ з ЖЭСа. Дазволіце вас абкрасці! Рэйтынг усіх службаў і падраздзяленняў ГУУС Мінгарвыканкама вырасАб КДБ РБГісторыя Аператыўна-аналітычнага цэнтра РБГісторыя ДКФРТаможняagentura.ruБеларусьBelarus.by — Афіцыйны сайт Рэспублікі БеларусьСайт урада БеларусіRadzima.org — Збор архітэктурных помнікаў, гісторыя Беларусі«Глобус Беларуси»Гербы и флаги БеларусиАсаблівасці каменнага веку на БеларусіА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіУ. Ксяндзоў. Сярэдні каменны век (мезаліт). Засяленне краю плямёнамі паляўнічых, рыбакоў і збіральнікаўА. Калечыц, М. Чарняўскі. Плямёны на тэрыторыі Беларусі ў новым каменным веку (неаліце)А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў, М. Чарняўскі. Гаспадарчыя заняткі ў каменным векуЭ. Зайкоўскі. Духоўная культура ў каменным векуАсаблівасці бронзавага веку на БеларусіФарміраванне супольнасцей ранняга перыяду бронзавага векуФотографии БеларусиРоля беларускіх зямель ва ўтварэнні і ўмацаванні ВКЛВ. Фадзеева. З гісторыі развіцця беларускай народнай вышыўкіDMOZGran catalanaБольшая российскаяBritannica (анлайн)Швейцарскі гістарычны15325917611952699xDA123282154079143-90000 0001 2171 2080n9112870100577502ge128882171858027501086026362074122714179пппппп

                                          ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result