It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# A Question of gravity!!

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:30 AM
Infinity,

I think you could be right. I have given it a bit of a thought and mass could be countered as almost negligible. As you have mentioned, the distance is the part which is important. I think geographical locations is an important aspect to. If we consider the earth to be a sphere, then the gravitational pull should be the same, hence, it should be relatively easy to calculate the accuracy of weight at different leves. I may be guessing here, but considering that, the equation will refer to 'R' cube in the equation. However this is not the case. The earth is not a sphere and hence the equation, and as you would be aware, the G force at the poles would be less at the poles than the equator. Also there would be the centrifugal force working opposite to G.

Let me explain, what i am thinking by an example. If i consider an oval shaped potato. Take a knife or an instrument or a kitchen equipment, by which i could insert it to the centre and start creating circular pieces commencing from the core, where g=0 and moving upward till, i reach a point where i cannot create a circle, or sphere. In this instance, would not r be cube instead of square. In such an instance, considering death valley a part of the sphere and mt everest being cut out of the sphere, the G pull on death valley would be more compared to that on mt everest.

I hope I could explain myself.

I think we may have to investigate more on this to get the 100% accuarate ans

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:47 AM
Zero is a base term created to provide the human brain with a general idea of an incomprehensable term. Zero does not exist. So therefor your question is null.

Also, if you would like to reiterate your question, please define and explain what gravity is.
Acutally, explain WHY gravity is.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by GeoPetroEngGuy]

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:11 AM
Geopetroengguy,

I agree to the null aspect of zero. The effect of gravity at the core of earth, is an assumption of zero to derive mathematical calculations. There are many theories out there for wich we use hypothetically assume. The same can be said for infinity, positive and negative, it doesnt exist or does it, we dont know for sure, hence we presume. It is a stand which youll find in the scientific community.

I think the second question is intended more for the orginator of the thread.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:20 AM
knowledge23:

I understand his question. I just can't think of the answer off the top of my head, not 100% accurate any way. So I was just being an ass and throwing out a question that would win a nobel prize if defined.

What and WHY, is gravity.

Yes, I am an ass.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:24 AM
GeoPetroEng...

That is fine. Part of any discussion forum. No offense taken.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by GeoPetroEngGuy
What and WHY, is gravity.

Yes, I am an ass.

I got it the first time around, heh. Just the definition of what gravity actually is, would win the nobel prize. I'm still waiting. We most likely never will observe what it is directly, but then again many people said the same of molecular structures and atoms, now we take snapshots of orbitals. Who really knows what we'll be able to do eventually, given enough time.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:45 AM
I think that within my lifetime we will be able to define gravity. And ?I also believe that, the truth will lift many, MANY barriers to our science.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by GeoPetroEngGuy]

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:00 AM
Here you go guys, this is a nice article on the basics of gravity. This should give us all a good idea of what gravity and maybe reflect back on the basics to understand the question.

The Defintion of Gravity

Hope this helps all...

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by mikesingh
The gravity at the centre of the Earth is 'zero'.

This is incorrect, unless you are 'setting' gravity to be zero at the centre of the Earth for the purposes of demonstration or calculation.

Originally posted by mikesingh
So will I weigh more in Death Valley or on top of Mt Everest?

And why?

You will weigh more at the location furthest from the Equator.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:20 AM
this might seem like a dumb answer but i feel that i weigh as much as i weigh no more no less. gravity might make me feel heavier/lighter but my weight stays the same.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by dirtyrat5000]

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:57 AM
I would think that the closer you are to the 'zero' point, in this case the centre of th earth; and not factoring in any other variables such as a mountains mass and a valleys lack of it, you would weigh more in Death Valley than on the top of Mount Everest.

This is because I imagine the gravitational pull of an object to be like a cloud of ink in water. At its centre, it is the thickest, and as you go out it has less and less density.

Someone also wrote that the speed of freefall is constant. I do not think this is the case. Perhaps, if you factor in wind resistance, you would have a limited speed, but if you were free-falling through a vacuum you would pick up more and more speed, because of both the effects of being exposed to the g-pull and the gradual increase in the strengh of the gravitational force.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by glastonaut

This is incorrect, unless you are 'setting' gravity to be zero at the centre of the Earth for the purposes of demonstration or calculation.

The gravity at dead centre IS Zero!! It's not rigged for this question!
Have a nice day!!

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks

If mikesingh would bother to give us the answer, that would be nice.

So w_t_r, you give up?
OK send me a U2U if you want the answer!!

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:58 AM
You can assume that as long as you are calculating the gravitational force outside the surface of the earth, that the earth is a point mass (at the centre of the earth) and you will weigh more closest to that point ie in death valley.

To clear up, the acceleration of freefall is constant (in a vacuum) not the velocity. And dirtyrat5000 you are mixing up mass with weight, your mass stays the same no matter what gravity you are exposed to but your weight changes as g does (weight=mass x g).

-George

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:07 AM
Gravity effects time. So would time run "faster or slower" In Death Valley? You also have to look at the mass of the object, the closer you get to the center of the earth the less mass would be pulling you down until you reach the center, as you pass through assuming you are in a vaccum you would accelerate until the center point then continue on until mass would again increase behind you, slowing you.

I saw the gravity maps a few years ago, and from the data I saw, gravity was varied, but less in that region.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:58 AM
Hmmmm. I'm going to have to go with Death Valley, because from what I've learned, the closer you get to a planet or space body, the stronger the gravitational pull becomes.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:43 PM
See this long winded explanation
Ask a scientist - Weight: Mountain vs Valley

The short answer is that in relation to the Earth's entire mass, going from a mountain to a valley has little to no effect on your weight.

Take for instance your journey from the Dead Sea shoreline (Lowest elevation on earth) at 1,300 feet below sea level to the top of Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet. You would have traveled 30,335 feet. While this sounds like a lot remember that the earth's radius is about 3959 miles on average. That's 20,903,520 feet. Your elevation change is only about .145% of the distance to the center of the earth, and if you factored in the entire mass of the planet your movement was microscopic.

Of course you'll need to factor in the gravity of the moon and the Sun plus atmospheric conditions at the time if you want to be exact, but the amount of change you made is equivelant to dumping out a cup of water in a rain storm. In theory it made a difference, but in reality no one will ever notice.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by dbates]

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh
The gravity at dead centre IS Zero!! It's not rigged for this question!
Have a nice day!!

That makes no physical sense whatsoever. How many other incorrect assumptions have you also taken for granted in this question?

You are saying that the acceleration due to gravity at the centre of mass of a planet is zero. This is just plain wrong.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by glastonaut

Originally posted by mikesingh
The gravity at dead centre IS Zero!! It's not rigged for this question!
Have a nice day!!

That makes no physical sense whatsoever. How many other incorrect assumptions have you also taken for granted in this question?

You are saying that the acceleration due to gravity at the centre of mass of a planet is zero. This is just plain wrong.

I will agree. This thread was riddled with misconeptions and misinterpretations from the begining.

I think it should be wise to separate gravity and acceleration do to gravity. The earth is not a perfect sphere. If this were some sort of mathematics chat it could be possible to define a center of a sphere and to possibley say yes, the acceleration due to gravity is zero. But here in the the physical world, you cannot locate such a point or have such a thing as a perfect sphere.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by knowledge23
Here you go guys, this is a nice article on the basics of gravity. This should give us all a good idea of what gravity and maybe reflect back on the basics to understand the question.

The Defintion of Gravity

Hope this helps all...

That is not a definition, it's a description. We still do not know what it is. We know the How, that is all.

new topics

top topics

0