It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why doesn't the Earth fall apart?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
i was watching the thunder of the gods video about EU theory and they gave an example of how weak gravity is. they showed a metal ball on a table and said that all of the earth's gravity is holding the ball in place but yet a simple magnet can lift the ball.

so then i wondered, if all of the earth's gravity can hardly hold a small ball in place then how does half of earth's gravity hold the other half in place? shouldn't centrifugal force rip the earth apart in a second or two if it's just gravity holding everything together?

sure there are large rock formations and mud and dirt and minerals and whatnot that bond strong enough to hold against gravity but they aren't all connected. how is it that theplanet manages to stay in one piece?




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Another question along those lines is : if space is really a vacuum, why doesn't the atmosphere get sucked up to try and fill some of it? A vacuum is a very powerful force. Gravity seems weak. If it originates at the center of the earth, shouldn't gravity be proportional to it's distance from the center? Shouldn't the upper atmosphere be the only slightly attached to the earth? I think these questions point out how shallow and superficial "Science" is.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
The EARTH is a magnet; much like ALL CELESTIAL BODIES, like planets moon and stars and clovers

but to answer you exact question would require many posts about micro biology, cosmology and alot of number crunching, but the quick answerer is Electricity

Masses above a certain size tend to clump together, Astrophysically speaking; that is.

Magnetism is the main driving force behind the gathering of material THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE galactic horizon. Heavy metals find each other in Clouds and over the longest period of time conceivable to man; they form structures such as our very own Milky way

reply to post by ReelView

Essentially, if you put all the trash on earth at a certian point away from earth, it will sit there until the end of time


The very principle you seem to be forgetting the the same one that allows you to be interettin' or watching television at this very second; and subsequently throughout the entire Information age and quite possibly the entire span of forward human history.

Geosynchronous orbit

ANY OBJECT, at 1000 some odd kilometers above the earths surface will stay; (in essence), fixed in position ABOVE the earths surface and will SEEMINGLY defy Newtonian phisics. this i merely a Cause/effect of the mass of the earth as it spins creates both a repelling and attracting like movement. the Mathematical figure required to reach this ORBIT to MASS equilibrium is explained quite well HERE


[edit on 1-6-2009 by drsmooth23]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The answer is not so difficult as all that.

You have factored the properties in the wrong order, You underestimate the power of earth's gravity.

Stop the Earth's rotation and you will feel the full force of gravity. you are currently in a state of balance between gravity, which is slightly stronger than the centrifugal force which would throw you into the air. Were that force to weaken and you would be cast into the air along with all loose bits of the earth. loose your momentum and be pulled back to earth by gravity in a greate grinding machine of a planet!

The fact that we have not found such planets, suggests that the grinder would consume some of the rotational energy and slow the rotation to a more stable speed. Hence balance where stability wins out.

Cyberbians law of planetary physics, rotational energy always falls to a level where gravitational force wins over centrifugal force.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Another question along those lines is : if space is really a vacuum, why doesn't the atmosphere get sucked up to try and fill some of it? A vacuum is a very powerful force. Gravity seems weak. If it originates at the center of the earth, shouldn't gravity be proportional to it's distance from the center? Shouldn't the upper atmosphere be the only slightly attached to the earth? I think these questions point out how shallow and superficial "Science" is.




Gravity does not originate at the center of the Earth.

Every bit of earth has it's own gravity, were you in the center of a hollow and evenly distributed planet, you would be weightless due to the evenly distributed gravity. Therefore as you go deeper toward the center of the Earth, you become lighter and lighter.

The atmosphere is held to the Earth by gravity. Perhaps science is not as shallow as your understanding.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
It's not so much how weak gravity is as a force, it's just that magnetic force is stronger. Wait until you learn about atomic bonds. THAT is a strong force.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by drsmooth23
 


magnetism, exactly. which requires an electrical current.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


quote - Stop the Earth's rotation and you will feel the full force of gravity. you are currently in a state of balance between gravity

which objects in the universe are completely motionless so that we can observer and test this equilibrium?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


Just because gravity is the weakest of the four forces doesn't mean it is "weak", of the four forces gravity compensates by being the force with the longest influence over matter. Gravity is still pretty strong, just not as strong as the other three. Why doesn't the Earth fall apart? Well for one the other three forces, especially the weak and strong nuclear forces prevent that.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I have always thought that gravity was not a force, it was more of a effect of space and time being warped by mass in space.

When you drop a ball from the top of a building the ball is not
actually falling at all, it is the warping of space and time that is making the illusion of an object moving relative to another object . The reason things fall down, is because the warpage is following a plain of toward the sky down to the ground, so the object looks as though it is sliding down when in fact everything is actually the illusion of the warpage of mass in space.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
There is no such thing as centrifugal force! All that we call centrifugal force is actually centripetal force (center seeking). High school / Grade School basic physics here people!

Centripetal Force

Keep it in your head people! It's the proper term!


[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Gravity pulls things towards it. A vacuum by definition is absolutely nothing. Seeing as gravity is a phenomenon of matter, there's nothing in that nothingness to oppose it. Gravity is the force to be resisted in this scenario not gravity being the resistor of another imaginary force trying to break it apart.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Centrifugal force is the opposite of centripetal force.

mechanical-physics.suite101.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by DaMod
 


Centrifugal force is the opposite of centripetal force.

mechanical-physics.suite101.com...


Yup by definition, but really the force in this category that applies is centripetal force. Centrifugal force does not really exist except for only a lack of centripetal force.....

Centrifugal force only exists as a definition of a possible force however never occurs. It can only be centripetal....

Everything is center seeking! The equal opposite reaction is simply a lack thereof....

I'll quote your article..


Centrifugal force is a reaction to a centripetal force, and that's why you only need to consider centripetal force.


Anyone that disagrees with me obviously never took physics in high school, and never took science in grade school.... Please do some research if your going to reply in disagreement....

I thought this was common knowledge!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


*shrug* It's not a force by definition but it still exists and has a name.
www.thekeyboard.org.uk...

Some examples of it occurring are included here. I've taken physics, too.

But I mean, whatever.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by DaMod
 


*shrug* It's not a force by definition but it still exists and has a name.
www.thekeyboard.org.uk...

Some examples of it occurring are included here. I've taken physics, too.

But I mean, whatever.


Yes but Centrifugal force only exists as a lack of Centripetal force as it applies to inertia.... It does exist but not really since the only form it exists is a lack of Centripetal force even if it is a reaction to said force.

When you go around a curve you are always center seeking.

The only way centrifugal force can exist is as a reaction to centripetal force therefore only the latter applies in all cases.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
reply to post by drsmooth23
 


magnetism, exactly. which requires an electrical current.


No No No....

See Polarity...

An electrical current is a byproduct of magnetism in a sense that it is the result of a magnetically generated electrical charge. Basically electrons always want to even themselves out in correspondence with the contained opposite polarity in the atomic structure. Hence static.. This does not necessarily apply to a magnetic field even though it kind of does on a level.... Can someone help me out I'm having trouble explaining properly...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Like stalactites and stalagmites in geology, centripetal force and centrifugal force are often confused in physics. Both forces are important in describing circular motion. However, when making calculations, you usually only need to worry about centripetal force.

Circular Motion
A body in circular motion may have a constant speed, but since it is constantly changing direction, it's velocity (a vector with both magnitude and direction) is constantly changing. When velocity is constantly changing, that means there is acceleration. In the case of circular motion, the direction of acceleration is the center of the circular path. This acceleration is called centripetal acceleration.

A special type of circular path is an orbit. In an orbit, the circling body is constantly falling towards the center but never reaches it.

Since acceleration is always a part of circular motion, and bodies have mass, a force must also be involved.

Definition of Centripetal Force
The word centripetal is from Latin and means "towards the center". The direction of the force is towards the center. Centripetal force "glues" a body to a circular path. Centripetal force describes how the force acts, not what force it is - so it could be from gravity or electromagnetic, or even the nuclear forces if the circular path is on the subatomic scale



Read more: "Centripetal vs. Centrifugal: The Forces of Circular Motion | Suite101.com" - mechanical-physics.suite101.com...&A

Definition of Centrifugal Force
The word centrifugal is also from Latin, and it means "flee from the center". Newton's Third Law states that all forces have an equal and opposite reaction. Centrifugal force is a reaction to a centripetal force, and that's why you only need to consider centripetal force.



Read more: "Centripetal vs. Centrifugal: The Forces of Circular Motion | Suite101.com" - mechanical-physics.suite101.com...&A



mechanical-physics.suite101.com...


Nowadays, centrifugal force is most commonly introduced as a force that is observed in a rotating reference frame, and referred to as a fictitious or inertial force (a description that must be understood as a technical usage of these words that means only that the force is not present in a stationary or inertial frame).[1][2] Centrifugal force is zero when the rate of rotation of the reference frame is zero, independent of the motions of objects in the frame.[3]

A reactive centrifugal force is the reaction force to a centripetal force. A mass undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, constantly accelerates toward the axis of rotation. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the mass by some other object. In accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the mass exerts an equal and opposite force on the object. This is the "real" or "reactive" centrifugal force: it is directed away from the center of rotation, and is exerted by the rotating mass on the object that originates the centripetal acceleration.[4][5][6]

The concept of the reactive centrifugal force is used often in mechanical engineering sources that deal with internal stresses in rotating solid bodies.[7] Newton's reactive centrifugal force still appears in some sources, and is often referred to as the centrifugal force rather than as the reactive centrifugal force.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hopefully this well quell the argument that is sure to get stronger.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


All that in a nutshell is what I just said...

Centrifugal force is a result of centripetal force and does not exist by itself....

The only one that anyone should consider is centripetal force...

I guess I wasn't clear?

reply to post by Mozzy
 


Now I've explained myself lol... Let me answer your question.

Gravity is a strong force, you have to understand we may be able to go against gravity, but It holds the moon mostly due to centrifugal force.

Let me explain....

Take a bucket of water.

Lets pretend the bucket and handle are gravity and the water is earth. (this is not taking the earth's own gravity into consideration)

Spin it around in big circles.

You just created centripetal force. As it spins you notice the earth(water) is being held in place by gravity(the bucket) even though there is a centrifugal force acting on the earth(water).

The gravity (bucket and handle) are holding the Earth (water) in orbit even though there is a resulting centrifugal force acting upon it...

Matter generates gravity..

Take a Neutron star. This star only about 10 meters across generates enough gravity to warp space time enough to make a hole.

Why? Because it is sooooo dense. The particles of it's structure are huddled extremely close together. The gravity is so strong that there is nothing the particles can do but crush into each other. And then it reaches it's limit and turns inside out.

Look at the earth. Up here on top the surface and the place we live in aren't that dense so they do not generate much gravity.

Now go inside the earth.

The mantle is far more dense and therefore generates more gravity. The matter in the mantle is under extreme pressure which will increases it's overall density. When you get to the core you have the entire earth cramming massive amounts of liquid iron (among other things) into a relatively small space. A lot of matter is involved in the inner layers, and that is where most of our gravity comes from. The closer you get to the center, the more intense gravity will become, because you are getting closer to the most dense matter on the planet.

(dense means closer together... sorry just saying)

Why does density determine gravity? That is easy, mass. The more dense matter is, the more mass you can fit into a smaller space.

You cannot forget that the earth is mostly melted metal and rock. We are literally sitting on a boat of solid rock floating on a massive ocean of magma and molten iron.

Why does the crust rock float?

That is also due to density. Take a container of some sort and fill it with rocks, and then pour a layer of sand on top of them.

Now shake the box side to side, you will notice that the more dense sand will start to move under the rocks and the larger rocks will move to the top. That is because the sand is more dense than the rock layer.

This is the same reason oil floats on water.

There is also buoyancy to take under consideration but you probably already know what that is.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
the strong and weak nuclear forces, yeah we all know about that. but that doesn't account for hwy the earth holds together. you can't tell me that the nuclear forces hold the rocky mountains to the himalayas. it's just not possible.

the earth "breaking" up doesn't mean it shatters into dust. all of the large formations could drift apart.

seriously this was covered in the op.

now we're down to two forces, magnetism and gravity.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join