external mass on earth

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
this is an aside to the thread 'galactical information conspiracy'. through the laws of conservation of mass, it is reasonable to assume that earth has a fixed total mass. if we introduced vast amounts of mass from an external source such as asteroids, would this have an effect on earths gravity, rotational period or indeed its orbital period? i dont have the answers myself, but i'm interested in knowing!




posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
yes it would. but at the same time, the sun is constantly taking from us and the other planets..so it would depend on that ratio. But theoretically, yeah, we would gain mass, and changes would take place in everything.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
and wouldn't higher mass also mean higher gravity? i was thinking of why ve today don't have any land-creatures bigger than elephants as far as i know, when there was dinosaur-sized creatures with huge bodymass in ancient times. what is really the proportions of gravity compared to bodymass now and then? (not sure if i phrased this correctly so bare with me as english is not my native language)



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by THIseNdsnowoldKings
 


ok, so assuming the amount of mass coming in far exceeds what the sun takes from us, would the the rotaional period get shorter or longer? what experience as gravity is really the combination of the earths spin throwing us of and gravity pulling us down, if the spin slowed then would we not start feeling a little heavier. if the spin slowed down would we eventually get more hours in the day, would we notice? after all its all relative! would our years become longer thus achieving a longer youth and longer life span?
what if the spin speeded up, would we see things in like fast forward?



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Hi there

It makes you wonder what would happen is an asteroid was going to hit the earth but because we had taken up say 4 asteroid masses for your energy resourves, would this affect the gravatashinal pull of the earth.

comments welcome



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Earth's orbit is not fixed and will change according to mass, as will the orbit of the moon, but changes in mass are sufficiently small as to be negligible.

Darkspace, had the dinosaurs not been driven to extinction their is little doubt that they would be around today and it is highly likely that we wouldn't. The environmental changes which led to the dinosaurs' extinction allowed many species of mammal to fill the void left by the dionosaurs. Being warm blooded, mammals require much more energy to survive and thus are less well suited to the enormous size characterised by many species of dinosaur who were, of course, cold blooded. Once mammals reached greater levels of development, their dominance as primary predators and herbivores prevented a reversion to giant reptiles.

The largest orgainism known to have ever lived is the Blue Whale, a mammal, but one that has developed its enormous bulk because it is supported in water and has an extremely plentiful energy source in the shape of plankton. Ironically the Blue Whale's enormous size makes it extremely vulnerable to environmental change.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
had the earth not cracked in 1/2 and flew to another part of the galaxy. You know there is not a single piece of evifdence that actually prooves fossilization over time. Seems to me the deep cold of space would be a better answer to that.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


then how come we don't have ANY land-animals of that size today? according to "my" logic some animals of that size should still excist today, if high/low gravity has noting to do with it. if we still have the same mass as 65 million years ago, then the circumstanses that made dinosaurs that big is still there. but if the earth "lost" a chunk of it mass due to a catastophe of some sort, e.g rouge planet crashes into part of the earth, thus the debris creating the moon an the asteroidbelt. (i know this is a valid theory(not mine)) the mass of the earth and the gravity would be less then before the disaster, that way land-animals of dinosaur-size wouldn't be able to support its weight anymore. not sure if i have the mass/gravity portion correct though.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


Well, hate to tell you, but the dinosaurs were definitely warm blooded. We can tell through both fossil evidence (blood vessels in the bones, even some mummified organs).

So why have no mammals grown to dinosaurian sizes? Well, why would they? The evolutionary pressures are different, and the same problem can often be answered in a number of ways.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
are mammals the only creatures that lives on land??
that was more then a knew



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by THIseNdsnowoldKings
 


Actually there is plenty of proof that fossilization occurs over time, sometimes even quickly. In fact, there was a human foot fossilized inside of a cowboy boot that was found in sandstone.
But first off, according to you at one point in time the earth split in two and half was hurtled across the universe. Since fossils occurred over a vast amount of time, ranging from the emergence of complex multicellular organisms to the near present, this doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense since in space, bodies would be freeze dried, not turned into rock.
Again, remember the foot? Since in human history that recent we haven't had the Earth split, I'm going to have to say you need to recheck your idea there.
How do fossils form? Over the long periods of time they are buried, the calcium and other minerals are leeched out and replaced with other minerals, making them like rock.

And actually, it's generally accepted that dinosaurs were some form of warm blooded, they were not reptiles as we think of them, but a unique species. Remember, birds are the descendants of the smaller bipedal dinos.

As for their size, somewhere along the line dinosaurs managed to grow huge, and to follow suit the predators had to adapt as well, either by growing larger themselves or by forming packs and possible intelligence, since the dinosaurs that remained small were generally fast, well armored or moved in herds (speculated). There was also more oxygen and a larger food source available at the time, from what I've read, plus the bodies of the bigger dinosaurs could metabolize plants much better than previously thought. For the sauropods the growth was a adaption, their size actually protected them to a degree. However, keep in mind there used to be a great deal of large fauna in recent history, which died out due to lack of prey, they kept growing large rand more specialized until a change came along and they couldn't adapt. The smaller animals survived on smaller prey, and came out on top.
In fact, if you think about it, evolution has worked a lot like technology, going from large bulky organisms to slimmer models over time.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ayame2008
 


Our perception of time should remain constant. Since we now measure things by atomic cycles. A second will be a second whether a day is 24 hours or not. If our spin slowed or accelerated, that would have no effect on our rotational speed, so in essence, our years would be the same amount of time, though we would have more or less cycles in that period.

So, if we adjusted days to equal the new hour ratio, whether 18 hours or 30 hours for sake of argument ... then instead of 365 days in a year, then we would have 456 and 274 days respectively (maybe different, just trying to do it in my head, but good enough to get the idea). This would in turn make our 'age' seem like we don't grow as old, or are able to get much older if future generations compared current day and time periods to their own.

Now, I find your theory of us getting heavier plausible, since we are technically being 'thrown' off the planet constantly by the spin, but our planet's gravity keeps us from continuing in a straight line off into space. I could see where what we experience is the net difference between these two forces.

It is actually an interesting idea, since didn't they find that gravity seemed to be higher on the moon than they originally expected? It also spins a lot less.

Thanks for getting me thinking about it ... and time permitting researching to see if they accounted for it. I assume so, but, sometimes great minds can overlook a minute detail occasionally.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 


Well, hate to tell you, but the dinosaurs were definitely warm blooded. We can tell through both fossil evidence (blood vessels in the bones, even some mummified organs).

So why have no mammals grown to dinosaurian sizes? Well, why would they? The evolutionary pressures are different, and the same problem can often be answered in a number of ways.


Not at all, they were cold blooded but of sufficient mass as to retain body heat for extended periods of time (volume to surface area ratio).

Darkspace, we don't have any animals of that size nowadays because, as I highlighted above, after the exticntion of the dinosaurs, mammals came to the fore and filled the gaps left by primary carnivore/herbivore dinosaurs. Sufficient primacy was achieved by mammals to prevent reptiles re-occupying the biological niches which had led to their enormous size. Mammals (indeed any warm-blooded animals) are restricted in size because they run the risk of over-heating and need a very high energy intake to support their metabolisms. Whales are something of an exception because they live in water and are able to consume very large quantities of food.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Mass of the earth is 5.97 X 10^24 kg.


in.docsity.com... _Series_9



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
edit on 8-1-2013 by CitizenJack because: dead thread





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join