[ArrogantBustard]

Thank you for demonstrating the failure of "hand-waving Physics".

Let's try math, instead of handwaving. We wish to determine the acceleration due to gravity acting upon an object as a function of its proximity to some other object. The two objects are (let us say) a hammer, and the moon. The each have mass M_h and M_m. According to Newton, a force acting on a mass M causes acceleration.

F=m*a

The gravitational force between two massive objects can be computed

F_g = G*(M₁*M₂)/ R²

where "R" is the distance between them. So, the gravitational acceleration of a hammer falling on the moon may be calculated:

F_g = G*(M_m*M_h)/ R² = M_h*a

Note that M_h cancels out of this equation. Acceleration of an object (a hammer) due to the gravitational attraction of another object (the moon) is not a function of the first object's (the hammer) mass.

[DuncanWaring]

I’m impressed.

I knew what the equations were, but lacked the ambition to actually “typeset” them in HTML.

[SampleMan]

Acceleration of an object (a hammer) due to the gravitational attraction of another object (the moon) is not a function of the first object's (the hammer) mass.

Really, so Jupiter and Earth have the same pull on the sun in your world.

You only did half of the equation.

[SampleMan]

Note that Mh cancels out of this equation. Acceleration of an object (a hammer) due to the gravitational attraction of another object (the moon) is not a function of the first object's (the hammer) mass.

What you are clearly doing is treating one of the masses as a parent mass, and ignoring the other.

According to your equation, if we swapped the moon and hammer as M1 and M2, the gravitational force would immediately drop off to near nothing.

Indeed, do the math.

[brytlea]

Oh my goodness. I think I’m better at handwaving! :)