<p>If we imagine magnets on a table as a simplified analogy in regards to gravitational attraction between objects, then it may be demonstrated that when three objects are placed in a row labeled in order A,B,&amp; C in such a manor that if object A is moved, objects B,&amp; C will respond by moving. If then object B is removed moving object A will not affect object C. If this analogy is considered for all objects in the solar system, or the whole galaxy, can we not extrapolate an explanation of how imagining the removal of a planet from the Solar System may affect every object in the galaxy? Could the destabilization of the asteroids destabilize the planets?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T06:49:34.607Z
There are (at least) two big differences; 1) the table is presumably on the surface of the Earth and so there is a threshold imposed by static friction with the table. That doesn't happen when free-floating in a vacuum, 2) magnets are dipoles, masses are monopoles, though that is a lesser difference than the static friction.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T07:25:10.037Z
What is a subplanetary solar object? Is that something like dry water?
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T08:21:26.157Z
Gravitation is a purely attractive force, which is why what you describe cannot happen with gravitating objects.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T12:05:44.600Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape this demonstration could easily work if three dipole (bar) magnets were placed along (and parallel to) a line, i.e. NS - NS - NS. In this case all pair forces would be attractive.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T14:28:21.187Z
If I understand your question, you are asking if solar-system dynamics can have something like a "butterfly effect".  Over the long term many-body orbital dynamics *is* chaotic, but unlike the weather we can predict it with remarkable precision over many years, and ignoring small solar system bodies doesn't affect the accuracy of those predictions.
antlersoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-23T18:11:50.813Z
Orbits aren't knife-edged balances of distance and gravity.  A light jostling (or a heavy jostling, or even a direct smack by an object comparable in size)  changes the orbit depending on how much and how the kinetic energy and momentum are delivered, but it won't result in an _unstable_ orbit outside of extremely rare circumstances..
notovny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-08T15:53:25.660Z
@antlersoft "ignoring small solar system bodies doesn't affect the accuracy of those predictions." is a true statement about single objects that ignores the nature of my question. If mass dynamics of sub planetary objects were disturbed in Aggregate how much of a disturbance would be required to disturb a planet.
Darren
<gravity><asteroids><space><mathematics><newtonian-gravity>
How can Aggregation of Gravitational Fields of subplanetary solar objects improve our understanding of the motion of the planets?
Darren
# How can Aggregation of Gravitational Fields of subplanetary solar objects improve our understanding of the motion of the planets?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-06-23)

If we imagine magnets on a table as a simplified analogy in regards to gravitational attraction between objects, then it may be demonstrated that when three objects are placed in a row labeled in order A,B,& C in such a manor that if object A is moved, objects B,& C will respond by moving. If then object B is removed moving object A will not affect object C. If this analogy is considered for all objects in the solar system, or the whole galaxy, can we not extrapolate an explanation of how imagining the removal of a planet from the Solar System may affect every object in the galaxy? Could the destabilization of the asteroids destabilize the planets?

**Tags:** gravity, asteroids, space, mathematics, newtonian-gravity

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There are (at least) two big differences; 1) the table is presumably on the surface of the Earth and so there is a threshold imposed by static friction with the table. That doesn't happen when free-floating in a vacuum, 2) magnets are dipoles, masses are monopoles, though that is a lesser difference than the static friction.  
> **username_2**: What is a subplanetary solar object? Is that something like dry water?  
> **username_3**: Gravitation is a purely attractive force, which is why what you describe cannot happen with gravitating objects.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 this demonstration could easily work if three dipole (bar) magnets were placed along (and parallel to) a line, i.e. NS - NS - NS. In this case all pair forces would be attractive.  
> **username_4**: If I understand your question, you are asking if solar-system dynamics can have something like a "butterfly effect".  Over the long term many-body orbital dynamics *is* chaotic, but unlike the weather we can predict it with remarkable precision over many years, and ignoring small solar system bodies doesn't affect the accuracy of those predictions.  
> **username_5**: Orbits aren't knife-edged balances of distance and gravity.  A light jostling (or a heavy jostling, or even a direct smack by an object comparable in size)  changes the orbit depending on how much and how the kinetic energy and momentum are delivered, but it won't result in an _unstable_ orbit outside of extremely rare circumstances..  
> **username_0**: @username_4 "ignoring small solar system bodies doesn't affect the accuracy of those predictions." is a true statement about single objects that ignores the nature of my question. If mass dynamics of sub planetary objects were disturbed in Aggregate how much of a disturbance would be required to disturb a planet.  

---

## 0 answers

