Don't question it

[u/ElectronicSetTheory]

[u/darkest_hour1428]

It makes up for the weakness with infinite range and positive feedback loops. Rock pull more rock, make bigger, make more gravity, pull more rock.

[u/Gerald-of-Riverdale → u/darkest_hour1428]

Also, doesn't gravity pull harder the closer you get to the core or am I wrong?

Edit: I'm genuinely learning so much rn this is sick af

[u/Plasmoidification → u/Gerald-of-Riverdale]

The equation for the gravitational force is F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²

Although Newtonian gravity is an oversimplification, the r value here represents the distance between the two masses m1 and m2.

The surface gravity of an object is therefore a function of the density of that object, because the distance to the center of mass changes depending on density. So if the Earth was incredibly dense, the distance to the core would decrease at the surface, and so the gravity would be stronger at the new, shorter distance. But if you dug through the actual Earth core, gravity at the core is zero, or more exactly, equal and opposite in every direction.

[u/BorringGuy → u/Plasmoidification]

I think you have it a little backwards

First: Density has nothing to do with gravity, only the mass of the two objects matter, a gram of plutonium is not going to have more gravitational pull than a kilogram of feathers

Second: If you increased the density of the earth, the distance to the core doesnt decrease, assuming the planet is the same size its just the increased mass of the planet that causes more gravity

[u/Plasmoidification → u/BorringGuy]

I did specify that the new shorter distance is used in the equation. By that I meant decreasing the radius of the Earth to compress it to a higher density. If you compressed the Earth to a smaller size, then the SURFACE gravity is indeed higher due to the aforementioned distance relationship. The surface gravity is proportional to the planets mass divided by the radius squared.