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.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BagBing
Nope. The polystyrene and the iron inner core are a single mass. Gravity is still strongest at the surface.
Yes, this is what I was thinking when I responded earlier, that you'd need a large density gradient to have gravity increase as you descend, and the atmosphere versus the Earth provides a sufficiently large density gradient.
Originally posted by BagBing
I said: In fact it's the same argument as whether gravity is strongest on top of, or inside, the atmosphere. Gravity should be greatest on top of the atmosphere..
Actually I think it does show up on the map at the end of the "Introduction to Earth Gravity" pdf I posted, and it's about where he said it was, a little closer to India, and it's about the right size...it's the only purplish area on the whole map.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
There is no scientifically observed anomaly of that sort. If there is such a valley, then it would cause a slightly lower than normal gravitational pull due to the lack of contributing mass. In fact, there is such a slight deviation in the area, around Sri Lanka. But, it's not nearly enough to cause any noticeable difference in fuel consumption. It's not even noticeable if your standing there on a really accurate scale.
So you don't believe my claim that you'd be essentially "weightless" at the center of the Earth, if you could get there somehow?
Originally posted by BagBing
If I'm standing at the south pole, I would feel less gravity than someone next to me in a six foot ditch. The difference would be irrelevant of course, but would still exists.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you don't believe my claim that you'd be essentially "weightless" at the center of the Earth, if you could get there somehow?
Originally posted by BagBing
If I'm standing at the south pole, I would feel less gravity than someone next to me in a six foot ditch. The difference would be irrelevant of course, but would still exists.
Originally posted by BagBing
reply to post by CLPrime
In working from the notion of a perfectly smooth, layered, oblate spheroid.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by BagBing
The confusion seems to be with the definition of "surface of the Earth." The surface of the Earth is not the ground, per se. Rather, the surface of the Earth is, basically, the averaged radial distance from the center to the ground. This distance defines a perfect sphere, and the location of the ground doesn't matter. At this single radial distance, the Earth's gravity is at a maximum.
Now, that doesn't mean that the ground can't dip above or below this spherical surface. But, we can't be concerned with that, because taking such variation into account is too tedious. You could say that the maximum gravity is below the ground, at the ground, and above the ground, and, for certain places on the planet, each of those would be right. However, Earth's gravity maximum is at the surface. Always. It doesn't matter what the density of each layer is, so long as each layer is roughly symmetrical.