Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InHow/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

Apparent duplicates between Haynes service instructions and MOT

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?

What is the meaning of the verb "bear" in this context?

Why do we hear so much about the Trump administration deciding to impose and then remove tariffs?

Return to UK after having been refused entry years ago

Aging parents with no investments

Worn-tile Scrabble

What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?

Reference request: Oldest number theory books with (unsolved) exercises?

Loose spokes after only a few rides

slides for 30min~1hr skype tenure track application interview

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Is bread bad for ducks?

Can someone be penalized for an "unlawful" act if no penalty is specified?

Right tool to dig six foot holes?

Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?

How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure

Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?

Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?

Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

What tool would a Roman-age civilization have for the breaking of silver and other metals into dust?

What did it mean to "align" a radio?



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



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InHow/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










6












$begingroup$


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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago
















6












$begingroup$


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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago














6












6








6





$begingroup$


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 2 days 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 2 days ago









JaeJae

313




313




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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    13 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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    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
    2 days 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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago


















4












$begingroup$

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). Let's take a case where the average atmospheric temperature varies from 250 to 300 K based on time of year.



EDIT: Originally, I did some sloppy approximations and got 7% reduction in gravity. However, I didn't take into account the fact that, since the city is floating, it doesn't matter where the gas goes; the city will move to wherever it can maintain the same ambient pressure as the temperature fluctuates. This ends up yielding a much more significant effect, since pressure varies exponentially in gravitational fields.



I got severely carried away in the calculations here, and they got very messy, but in short: with the assumptions above as well as a mostly-Helium atmosphere, a city floating at a height of 50 km at the coldest part of the year could be carried up to a dizzying height of 1500 km in the warmest, decreasing the local gravity by a whopping 40%! That means people would be able to jump twice as high in the summer as in the winter.



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
    2 days ago


















3












$begingroup$

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









        12












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
          $endgroup$
          – John Dvorak
          13 hours ago















        12












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
          $endgroup$
          – John Dvorak
          13 hours ago













        12












        12








        12





        $begingroup$

        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 2 days ago









        Klaus Æ. MogensenKlaus Æ. Mogensen

        1,214137




        1,214137











        • $begingroup$
          Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
          $endgroup$
          – John Dvorak
          13 hours ago
















        • $begingroup$
          Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
          $endgroup$
          – John Dvorak
          13 hours ago















        $begingroup$
        Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
        $endgroup$
        – John Dvorak
        13 hours ago




        $begingroup$
        Tidal locking might be possible to avoid with high eccentricity and maybe some resonance with a third object. The resultant volcanic activity would be detrimental to life, though. And that one can be fixed using a waterworld as you have suggested.
        $endgroup$
        – John Dvorak
        13 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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago






        • 4




          $begingroup$
          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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago






        • 4




          $begingroup$
          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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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 2 days ago

























        answered 2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago






        • 4




          $begingroup$
          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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago






        • 4




          $begingroup$
          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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
          2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days ago




        4




        4




        $begingroup$
        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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days 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
        2 days ago











        4












        $begingroup$

        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). Let's take a case where the average atmospheric temperature varies from 250 to 300 K based on time of year.



        EDIT: Originally, I did some sloppy approximations and got 7% reduction in gravity. However, I didn't take into account the fact that, since the city is floating, it doesn't matter where the gas goes; the city will move to wherever it can maintain the same ambient pressure as the temperature fluctuates. This ends up yielding a much more significant effect, since pressure varies exponentially in gravitational fields.



        I got severely carried away in the calculations here, and they got very messy, but in short: with the assumptions above as well as a mostly-Helium atmosphere, a city floating at a height of 50 km at the coldest part of the year could be carried up to a dizzying height of 1500 km in the warmest, decreasing the local gravity by a whopping 40%! That means people would be able to jump twice as high in the summer as in the winter.



        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
          2 days ago















        4












        $begingroup$

        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). Let's take a case where the average atmospheric temperature varies from 250 to 300 K based on time of year.



        EDIT: Originally, I did some sloppy approximations and got 7% reduction in gravity. However, I didn't take into account the fact that, since the city is floating, it doesn't matter where the gas goes; the city will move to wherever it can maintain the same ambient pressure as the temperature fluctuates. This ends up yielding a much more significant effect, since pressure varies exponentially in gravitational fields.



        I got severely carried away in the calculations here, and they got very messy, but in short: with the assumptions above as well as a mostly-Helium atmosphere, a city floating at a height of 50 km at the coldest part of the year could be carried up to a dizzying height of 1500 km in the warmest, decreasing the local gravity by a whopping 40%! That means people would be able to jump twice as high in the summer as in the winter.



        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
          2 days ago













        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        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). Let's take a case where the average atmospheric temperature varies from 250 to 300 K based on time of year.



        EDIT: Originally, I did some sloppy approximations and got 7% reduction in gravity. However, I didn't take into account the fact that, since the city is floating, it doesn't matter where the gas goes; the city will move to wherever it can maintain the same ambient pressure as the temperature fluctuates. This ends up yielding a much more significant effect, since pressure varies exponentially in gravitational fields.



        I got severely carried away in the calculations here, and they got very messy, but in short: with the assumptions above as well as a mostly-Helium atmosphere, a city floating at a height of 50 km at the coldest part of the year could be carried up to a dizzying height of 1500 km in the warmest, decreasing the local gravity by a whopping 40%! That means people would be able to jump twice as high in the summer as in the winter.



        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). Let's take a case where the average atmospheric temperature varies from 250 to 300 K based on time of year.



        EDIT: Originally, I did some sloppy approximations and got 7% reduction in gravity. However, I didn't take into account the fact that, since the city is floating, it doesn't matter where the gas goes; the city will move to wherever it can maintain the same ambient pressure as the temperature fluctuates. This ends up yielding a much more significant effect, since pressure varies exponentially in gravitational fields.



        I got severely carried away in the calculations here, and they got very messy, but in short: with the assumptions above as well as a mostly-Helium atmosphere, a city floating at a height of 50 km at the coldest part of the year could be carried up to a dizzying height of 1500 km in the warmest, decreasing the local gravity by a whopping 40%! That means people would be able to jump twice as high in the summer as in the winter.



        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








        edited yesterday





















        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 2 days ago









        Gilad MGilad M

        11115




        11115




        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
          2 days ago
















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















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




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











        3












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$

















          3












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            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 2 days ago









            LMDLMD

            3245




            3245





















                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 2 days 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 2 days 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

                                Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                                Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                                Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?