# The Asteroid Gravity Theory

## Recommended Posts

Since we are on an asteroid, the total amount of mass of the asteroid isn't enough to create a strong gravitational pull like we see in game. Therefore the second logical explanation should be that there's a different force pushing us "up". Well, not much of a force, but mostly inertia. Forces like centrifugal and centripetal fit into this scenario quite well. So the asteroid would probably look something like this, magma near the crust, something solid in the centre :

What do you think?

##### Share on other sites

It could also be we are on a massive asteroid but still blocked in by neutronium, afterall we have limitless geysers output essentialy

We could be circling another planet which has the mass to create gravity, but the asteroid moves around the planet too fast to collide with it.

Your theory also makes sense, where the bottom is actually the outer and the spin creates "gravity"

Yours is also the most plausible, with us orbiting another large mass being the second most plausible, and the asteroid being bigger the least.

##### Share on other sites

this would prob makes sense because light gasses go to top left corner and heavy gasses go bottom right corner.

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jantonio said:

this would prob makes sense because light gasses go to top left corner and heavy gasses go bottom right corner.

Why does that make sense? I'm aware of Coriolis forces and they don't seem applicable here.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AnonymoScoot said:

Since we are on an asteroid, the total amount of mass of the asteroid isn't enough to create a strong gravitational pull like we see in game.

What do you think?

Actually, objects inside the asteroid experience no gravitational pull from anything outside it at all as per Newton's Shell Theorem.

##### Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

Actually, objects inside the asteroid experience no gravitational pull from anything inside it at all as per Newton's Shell Theorem.

could you explain that more clearly? I don't get why you would feel no gravitational pull from the asteroid just by being inside of it. Does that mean if I dig a hole in the ground, I won't feel the earths gravity?

##### Share on other sites

Per the shell bit from my classical mechanics class, provided a perfectly spherical planet, you would feel no particular gravitational influence from anything outside the shell you're standing on due to the symmetry of the situation.  Ie. if you're magically standing at radius 2 of an 8 radius sphere, the gravity you'd experience would be based off a 2 radius sphere, not an 8 because the symmetry of the planet dictates everything "above" you cancels out everything else above you, gravity-wise.  So, in a uniform sphere of uniform density, the only place you'd experience no gravity would be at the direct center.

Specific to the video:  Haven't watched the video, but there's a quibble from the initial frame -- the force of gravity on the surface of Earth is not 9.8N.  The Earth is neither a perfect sphere nor of uniform density.  Granted, by a math theorem whose name escapes me off the top of my head (Probably some variant or derivative of Squeeze Thm), if value A is greater and value B is less, as you go from A to B, one certainly reaches the discussed value caught between ...   Well, this explanation is already too damn long, so the short version: only in very select places is it ever that specific number, ie on or about that specific radius which may or may not be under a mountain or some other obstruction.

##### Share on other sites

Now that I know what saturnus is talking about, I realize the second "inside" was supposed to be "outside".

9 hours ago, AnonymoScoot said:

Since we are on an asteroid, the total amount of mass of the asteroid isn't enough to create a strong gravitational pull like we see in game. Therefore the second logical explanation should be that there's a different force pushing us "up". Well, not much of a force, but mostly inertia. Forces like centrifugal and centripetal fit into this scenario quite well. So the asteroid would probably look something like this, magma near the crust, something solid in the centre :

What do you think?

I think he is saying that the asteroid is spinning really really fast, so that the centrifugal force equals that of normal earth gravity.

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BionicSandwich said:

I think he is saying that the asteroid is spinning really really fast, so that the centrifugal force equals that of normal earth gravity.

Correct. And we also know what direction it is spinning due to heavy gasses favouring to go right. It must be spinning clockwise.

Note. It's not the first time this discussion has come up, and it was the same conclusion then as well.

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BlueLance said:

It could also be we are on a massive asteroid but still blocked in by neutronium, afterall we have limitless geysers output essentialy

We could be circling another planet which has the mass to create gravity, but the asteroid moves around the planet too fast to collide with it.

Your theory also makes sense, where the bottom is actually the outer and the spin creates "gravity"

Yours is also the most plausible, with us orbiting another large mass being the second most plausible, and the asteroid being bigger the least.

If the asteroid would be as big as a planet in order to create 1 G, there would be a problem with structural integrity that normal atoms would just not be able to handle.

I think the most plausible theory would be that we are just on a quite big asteroid, even though the force would not be enough on the bottom to create molten magma, but seeing as the asteroid has biomes, it is probably a collection of joined little asteroids and comets.

Also it would be cool if Klei ever made the map bigger that it would have instead of cube shape more of a triangular shape to simulate a circle with constant 1x1 tiles.

I guess this explains it all :

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

*Cough*

Not sure what relevance that has for this thread.

##### Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

Not sure what relevance that has for this thread.

I hid what I said because most might view that as a major spoiler.

The relevance is I was offering my two cents on this thing; the reason why it might seem that the asteroid has such odd gravity/physics is due to the fact that it is a programmed simulation being run on a machine with limitations, and presumably with the goal of seeing how genetically duplicated beings react when put into increasingly hostile and changing environments.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

I hid what I said because most might view that as a major spoiler.

The relevance is I was offering my two cents on this thing; the reason why it might seem that the asteroid has such odd gravity/physics is due to the fact that it is a programmed simulation being run on a machine with limitations, and presumably with the goal of seeing how genetically duplicated beings react when put into increasingly hostile and changing environments.

Interestingly, I remember reading pretty much this same exact description of the game before I bought it.  It must be the Steam Store, I'll have to check.

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, watermelen671 said:

The relevance is I was offering my two cents on this thing; the reason why it might seem that the asteroid has such odd gravity/physics is due to the fact that it is a programmed simulation being run on a machine with limitation...

We're discussing how a world with the observed physical laws would look like. It's not relevant if it's a simulated or not.

Basically, we're pondering how the Matrix would look like if it was a real world while you're just saying the dupes are in the Matrix. You see the fundamental difference here?

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saturnus said:

We're discussing how a world with the observed physical laws would look like. It's not relevant if it's a simulated or not.

Basically, we're pondering how the Matrix would look like if it was a real world while you're just saying the dupes are in the Matrix. You see the fundamental difference here?

But it is a relevant discussion to have.  If that is ultimately the truth of the situation (a fact that we are unable to determine), then the physical parameters of the world outside the Neutronium are utterly irrelevant.  Given our lack of ability to test the hypothesis, it is equally valid as any of the other theories about the nature of the world(s) of ONI.

Yes, it is a fundamentally different argument.  But that doesn't make it irrelevant.

##### Share on other sites

My theory is that they are on "earth" still in a biodome as it were, and the experiment is now under way.

As such all geysers and fumeroles and such as just piped in, and the neutronium is actually a machine override built into the dupes that prevents them leaving the confines of the testing grounds

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AnonymoScoot said:

Since we are on an asteroid, the total amount of mass of the asteroid isn't enough to create a strong gravitational pull like we see in game. Therefore the second logical explanation should be that there's a different force pushing us "up". Well, not much of a force, but mostly inertia. Forces like centrifugal and centripetal fit into this scenario quite well. So the asteroid would probably look something like this, magma near the crust, something solid in the centre :

What do you think?

You are completely right, but you completely messed up the "size" factor of the playable zone.

I marked the playable zone and everything makes sense now.
Here is the proof, you are wrong about the size factor!

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oozinator said:

There's a few errors in that equation. For example it assumes neutrinos have no mass which we know it does.

But most importantly, I'm not sure why you show us the Lagrangian form of the standard model when we specifically talk about gravity which isn't mentioned in the standard model

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

There's a few errors in that equation. For example it assumes neutrinos have no mass which we know it does.

But most importantly, I'm not sure why you show us the Lagrangian form of the standard model when we specifically talk about gravity which isn't mentioned in the standard model

Heya Saturnus wish you a nice day, you genius ^^

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kabrute said:

My theory is that they are on "earth" still in a biodome as it were, and the experiment is now under way.

As such all geysers and fumeroles and such as just piped in, and the neutronium is actually a machine override built into the dupes that prevents them leaving the confines of the testing grounds

I feel like we are in a chunk of Earth that is now all that remains of the planet, some large debris field orbiting the moon, which is now all that remains of our little chunk of space. Some of the emails mention a research project, and some of the unimplemented emails go further.