Expanding Earth Theory

[Trevor]

Since we don't know the weight of the sensor we can't calculate Newtons, that's why I calculated the acceleration on the sensor instead

m1 = force of the sensor
m1a = F = G * m1 * m2 / (r ^ 2)
a = F / m1 = G * m2 / (r ^2)

The mass of the sensor is irrelevant. I confirmed in my excel sheet - changing the mass of the sensor does not affect the change in gravitational force.

The change in force of a larger Earth is greater than an 80kg person.

Run the numbers and use the right formula.

Trevor

 

[Soiguapo]

That formula is wrong the end of the first just contains distance no radius or squaring

This one?
G * m / (d ^2)

^2 means squared

 

[Trevor]

Ok, here's an update to my numbers. I halved the increase in radius to make it more conservative and also accounted for the small radial increase (I had forgotten)... now you're only off by a factor of 46,782!

Trevor

 

[Soiguapo]

The mass of the sensor is irrelevant. I confirmed in my excel sheet - changing the mass of the sensor does not affect the change in gravitational force.

The change in force of a larger Earth is greater than an 80kg person.

Run the numbers and use the right formula.

Trevor

I am pretty sure I am using the right formula. gravity is measured in m/s^2, that is acceleration. G*m/(r^2) measures the amount of acceleration the mass of 'm' has on any arbitrary object at distance 'r'. That is the correct formula, since the mass of the sensor is irrelevant.

A gravity sensor would measure units of acceleration, not force. Maybe you should recheck your equations.

 

[Trevor]

EDIT: Hold the phone. Gotta check something.

Trevor

 

[xirrious]

Thank you Trevor. Also mass of the sensor therefore is NOT irrelevant as it has an effect on overall gravitational force which IN TURN results in acceleration. You put the cart before the horse

Not to mention you keep using radii in your equations when it has nothing to do wit Newtons law

 

[Soiguapo]

Do you know what causes acceleration? Force.

f=ma

Your lack of knowledge of basic physics is really not helping you.

Trevor

Are you even reading my posts?

m1 = mass of the sensor
m1a = F = G * m1 * m2 / (r ^ 2)
a = F / m1 = G * m2 / (r ^2)

That part of the math I am certian of. The part I am uncertain of is the relationship between volume and gravity assuming a constant density. I just assumed that the following ratio would be good enough.

g'/g = v'/v

I know for small changes, this ratio will be good enough, I am just not sure at what point this approximation would diverge from the actual answer.

Anyway, I am done arguing the math. It really isn't that important to the overall argument anyway.

 

[Trevor]

I messed up a formula. Your math is, however, still off.

I'm copying numbers in to reply. Stand by...

Trevor

 

[xirrious]

That is NOT the equation I already showed you the proper one. It's close but no cigar the end is incorrect as I stated.

For relationship between volume and gravity first you need density in lbs/ft^2 or something then add that to your original equation F=G (m1*m2)/d^2

 

[Trevor]

One of my formulas effed up.

So, now that my sheet has been checked, rechecked, and checked again...

rEarth= 6378.1 km
GrowthRate= 0.0125 m
Years= 1 y
TotalGrowth= 0.0125 m
rEarthEnd= 6378.10000125 km EDIT: Corrected this value in Excel manually. The formula tried to round.
vEarthBegin= 1.08683E+12 m3
vEarthEnd= 1.08683E+12 m3
vDifference= 1017.004028 m3
dEarth= 5520 kg/m3

fEarth1=0.0098365962325
fEarth2=0.0098365962356
fPerson=0.0000000000008

Thus, the change in the Earth's mass STILL overwhelms a person's force of gravity by 2.3 times.

Not sure how I messed the number up so badly, had to remake the whole excel sheet. Sorry! I'll leave my posts for posterity...

Anyway, the person wouldn't even be on the same axis as the measurement. We care about force along the Z axis. This argument is moot because a person standing beside a sensor exerts force on the X or Y axis, which will not change the Z value in the least.

We have observed no change in gravity since we started observing, therefore there has been no change in mass and no change in the volume of the Earth.

Trevor

 

[xirrious]

Oops I misunderstood the whole argument but either way dude had his math wrong

 

[Trevor]

Either way, we can establish that we have measured no change in gravity... so there has been no change in mass of the Earth since those observations began.

We HAVE, however, observed continents moving around in that timeframe.

If the Earth is not expanding and the continents are moving, well...

Trevor

 

[Soiguapo]

Not sure how I messed the number up so badly, had to remake the whole excel sheet. Sorry! I'll leave my posts for posterity...

Understandable, my first estimate was wrong too.

Plus, they wouldn't even be on the same axis. You care about Z acceleration. This argument is moot because a person standing beside a sensor measuring vertical force of gravity has ABSOLUTELY no effect on the vertical reading.

I know, the point I was trying to make is it is really easy to effect the readings of a gravitational meter.

We have observed no change in gravity since we started observing, therefore there has been no change in mass and no change in the volume of the Earth

Trevor

Well, acceleration measured varies from place to place and effects gravitation readings. It is effected by elevation, density of the rock underneath you, latitude, and the pull of the moon. So two readings in different parts of the world are going to vary by quite a bit. Even a reading in the same place at different times will differ wildly. So to detect the change in earth's mass you would have to cancel out all of these other factors. I don't find it strange that nobody has noticed by measuring the gravitational pull of the earth.

 

[Trevor]

Well, acceleration measured varies from place to place and effects gravitation readings. It is effected by elevation, density of the rock underneath you, latitude, and the pull of the moon. So two readings in different parts of the world are going to vary by quite a bit. Even a reading in the same place at different times will differ wildly. So to detect the change in earth's mass you would have to cancel out all of these other factors. I don't find it strange that nobody has noticed the earth expanding by measuring the gravitational pull of the earth.

The Earth rotates at a given speed and the moon is of a given constant mass.

As long as you average a measurement out for the right amount of time at a constant location so that the effects of other celestial objects cancel themselves out (a sine wave averages to zero over one period), the value will still be accurate.

We have not measured any change in gravity, and the basic assumptions we use to put things in orbit have continued to work.

Had we just assumed gravity would stay the same after we accurately measured it to put things in orbit around the Earth, our calculations for extraterrestrial missions would be noticeably off now, fifty (probably more) years later.

Here's an experiment NASA's been running regarding Earth's gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

Trevor

 

[Jmillerdoc]

Alright, since we are now getting into gravity and celestial bodies why not shake things up a bit more. So far we've been pretty civil to each other.

Although I'm not an adherent to all of this guy's beliefs, I found some stuff on YouTube not too long ago by Charles Missler. He made a very compelling argument that the predominant natural force influencing the universe is not gravity, but rather the electromagnetic force. As y'all are aware the EM force is in the order of magnitudes greater than gravity. It's pretty interesting stuff. I don't have a link at the moment but if you search on YouTube for "plasma universe" or "electric universe" you'll find this video.

Just thought I'd throw that out there to see if anyone cares to check it out.

 

[Trevor]

If I recall correctly, gravity is really absurdly weak compared to other fundamental forces... and that's the extend of my knowledge of the theoretical/crazy/whatever side of the fundamental forces.

Honestly I don't feel at all qualified to comment without a serious literature review.

Trevor