Next message: Dan Allen: "Re: Navigating Around Hills and Dips in the Ocean"
Mr. Huxtable,
Though I am now in agreement with you, I came to that position by a slightly
different argument (that may or may not be valid). I assumed a completely
isolated sphere of a light matter covered with water, a distance from the
center of the sphere to the surface of the water, a value (G) for the
gravitational attraction at the surface of the water, and that the surface
of the water at any point must always be at a distance from the center of
the sphere such that the value of G is constant. I then introduced a much
smaller sphere made of a dense matter into the original sphere so that the
smaller sphere does not encompass the center of the larger sphere. The
center of gravitational attraction of these combined bodies is somewhere on
a line between their two centers. Since, at this instant, the shape of the
original sphere and distribution of water covering the sphere has not
changed, then, at the surface of the water "above" the small sphere, the
value of the gravitational attraction is not G but something larger. Thus
the water must move away from the center of the original sphere until the
gravitational attraction is again G. That is, a "mound" of water appears.
I do not claim that the argument above is whole or that it is valid, but it
did convince me that there will be a mound over an anomaly where the
attraction is stronger and a dip where it is weaker. Your argument is much
simpler and even more convincing.
George Istok
