Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 49

Thread: Earth's Gravity

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    80

    Earth's Gravity

    If the Earth was impacted by a massive object, would this have changed the Earth's gravity? During the age of dinosaurs could Earth's gravity have been less that it is today?
    Last edited by kryton; 2007-Apr-12 at 01:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    3,480
    It would have to be an incredibly massive object. During the time of the dinosaurs, the gravity was, for all practical purposes, identical to the current gravity.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    It would have to be an incredibly massive object. During the time of the dinosaurs, the gravity was, for all practical purposes, identical to the current gravity.
    Or quadrillions of small objects...

    A fair reasonable estimate can be obtained by computing the total mass of all micrometeorite collisions with the Earth each day, on average (a fairly well-known quantity), and comparing it to the mass of the Earth's atmosphere we lose to outerspace each day (also a fairly well-known quantity).

    The earlier years of our planet's existance saw both higher rates of impact from larger particles, as well as a higher pressure atmosphere with greater rate losses than today. Since I know neither, I'm not qualified to comment as to the net effect over time.

    I would hazard a guess that it was not materially different than it is today, and possibly the Earth is more massive today, as the Earth's atmosphere is an exceedingly small component of it's overall mass.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kryton View Post
    If the Earth was impacted by a massive object, would this have changed the Earth's gravity?
    Several billion years ago, the Earth's net mass probably was increased with a roughly Mars mass object that struck the Earth, resulting in the formation of the moon. Of course, life could not survive such an impact.

    During the age of dinosours could Earth's gravity have been less that it is today?
    No. The Earth's mass has not changed significantly for billions of years. If there had been a massive impact so recently, this would be a dead world. Even the mass of a several mile diameter asteroid, like the one thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs, is irrelevant compared to the mass of the Earth.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2007-Apr-11 at 05:38 AM. Reason: typo

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Several billion years ago, the Earth's net mass probably was increased with a roughly Mars mass object that struck the Earth, resulting in the formation of the moon. Of course, life could not survive such an impact.
    I was going to object to this, but I think it depends on what one means by "several". I always thought "several" implied two, or at the most three. But maybe it can be more. Apparently the impact was something like 4.5 billion years ago, and the earliest recorded life is from about 3.5 billion. It seems likely that life didn't even exist on earth at the time of the impact.
    As above, so below

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I was going to object to this, but I think it depends on what one means by "several". I always thought "several" implied two, or at the most three.
    When I was a child, I was told, "You've been naughty several times today." I asked what several meant, and was told, "Any number except one and two."

    I don't think that's quite right - I don't think fifty counts as several - but I think the word means "a fair few".

  7. 2007-Apr-11, 11:06 AM
    Reason
    Multiple duplicate posts

  8. 2007-Apr-11, 11:06 AM
    Reason
    Dup. I'll never post at back up time again. Ugh.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I was going to object to this, but I think it depends on what one means by "several". I always thought "several" implied two, or at the most three. But maybe it can be more. Apparently the impact was something like 4.5 billion years ago, and the earliest recorded life is from about 3.5 billion. It seems likely that life didn't even exist on earth at the time of the impact.
    From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several

    1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.


    I could have been more specific, but I was writing quickly. Also, I did not state that there was life on the Earth at that time, but did note that life could not survive such an impact. That's one of the reasons we know there haven't been any more recent impacts on this scale. Objects with relatively insignificant mass can cause mass extinctions. After something like this, though, observing aliens would have to rewrite their equivalent of textbooks about the planet.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,975
    Innumerable might be a better choice; I certainly wouldn't like too try to count the particles that resulted from the Big Splash, as it is sometimes called.
    An image of the impact by Fahad Sulehria
    The first few minutes after impact
    Look at all those pretty particles.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Apparently the impact was something like 4.5 billion years ago, and the earliest recorded life is from about 3.5 billion. It seems likely that life didn't even exist on earth at the time of the impact.
    Right. Astrobiology Magazine clarifies....

    Excerpt: Does the first evidence of life date to 3.85 billion years ago (Ga), or 3.65 Ga? A 200-million-years discrepancy may seem trivial almost 4 billion years after the fact. And yet scientists continue to debate whether some of the oldest rocks ever found date to 3.85 Ga, or "just" 3.65 Ga.

    The discrepancy matters because the rocks, however old they are, indicate that life already existed at the time they formed. The dispute is not just a matter of how early life began, however, but under what conditions: The earlier date was during the tail end of an asteroid storm called the "late heavy bombardment," while the later date was after the bombardment ceased.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,428
    I, personally, use "several" to mean anywhere between two and a dozen. (Okay, sometimes, I use it to mean more than that, but I always catch myself and promptly feel dumb.)

    I can't help much with gravity, but definitions? Oh, yeah.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    28
    Several billion years ago, the Earth's net mass probably was increased with a roughly Mars mass object that struck the Earth, resulting in the formation of the moon. Of course, life could not survive such an impact.
    If a really large object(close to Earth's size) with a great mass(equal to, or greater than Earth) does hit Earth, would it be possible for earth to just "break" into half or whatever number of pieces?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by unknownspiritx View Post
    If a really large object(close to Earth's size) with a great mass(equal to, or greater than Earth) does hit Earth, would it be possible for earth to just "break" into half or whatever number of pieces?
    It would need to overcome Earth's self-gravity, but if it's massive enough and fast enough, it's possible the Earth could be disrupted. The planet wouldn't literally crack in half, of course.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    Any impact that could break the Earth into separate large pieces
    would scatter vast numbers of smaller pieces all around. Everything
    would be enveloped in a cloud of hot vapor comparable in mass to
    the total mass of the pieces. It would cool rapidly, with some vapor
    condensing onto the solid pieces, but some of it would be blown
    away by solar wind. The impactor would have to be moving very
    fast to knock any material into an orbit far from Earth's orbit.

    The total increase in mass of the Earth from infalling meteoroids
    and asteroid impacts over the last two billion years is miniscule
    compared to the mass of the Earth. Earth is pretty big.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Several., seems to contain the word seven. So more than a few wouldn't you think...
    No. planet Earth can not sustain its form as a half or any other recognizable part of the original sphere. The force of impact would completely destroy this planet. Some million years or so later the newly coalesce material would have settled into a spherical shape. Gravity would do this. But life would not return until the conditions became tolerant of it. This could take hundreds of millions of years. Or never.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    "Several" and "a few" are synonyms, but used differently:

    I only took a few cookies.
    We only have a few miles to go.
    I got A's in several classes.
    You fouled up in several ways.

    I use "a couple" to mean "about two or three or so".

    I caught a couple fish.
    Life has existed on Earth for a couple billion years.

    eburacum, did you misunderstand what the "several" applied to?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,975
    Oh yes; I thought it was referring to the bits flying off the Earth in the impact. mea culpa.

    I myself would use several to refer to at least three, and perhaps as many as twenty.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    28
    Ah, so its all upto gravity to make it turn back into a sphere shaped object again? But I don't get the whole idea of gravity. Where does it even come from? I understand where gravitiy might come from from a planet or star (is it because of the core of the planet/star ?) But i'm a little confused about where the gravity comes from in just a vaccum area?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    If it has mass it has gravity. The more mass the more gravity. Density is not important. The sum total of mass of a galaxy exerts its gravity as a whole.
    Yes if a number of particles are large enough gravity will pull it into a sphere. Density will increase as mass increases.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    If it has mass it has gravity. The more mass the more gravity. Density is not important. The sum total of mass of a galaxy exerts its gravity as a whole.
    Yes if a number of particles are large enough gravity will pull it into a sphere. Density will increase as mass increases.

    so space itself has no gravity? (or would have no gravity if there were no objects with mass in it?) its just all the objects that are in space that creates gravity between each other?


    Oh and one more question, is it always true that density will increase as mass increases?

    which means increase in mass= increase in gravity=increase in density


    Anyways, your explanation was simple but fantastic. I think i understand the mass-gravity relation well now. Thanks

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by unknownspiritx View Post
    so space itself has no gravity? (or would have no gravity if there were no objects with mass in it?) its just all the objects that are in space that creates gravity between each other?


    Oh and one more question, is it always true that density will increase as mass increases?

    which means increase in mass= increase in gravity=increase in density


    Anyways, your explanation was simple but fantastic. I think i understand the mass-gravity relation well now. Thanks


    unknowspiritx,
    You can increase the density of an object and decrease the mass of the object at the same time. Space is full of gravity, mass doesn't contain gravity. Mass displaces the space around it, this dispacement is gravity. Gravity is a push to a lower force from a higher force. The energy around an object expandes faster than the masses energy, because mass is a condensed form of energy, these are the high and low forces that give us gravity. You're not going to find that in any physics books back in class, but it doesn't mean that it can't be true. Actually using this thought prosses answers questions that can't be answered by scientists right now.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by rebel View Post
    You're not going to find that in any physics books back in class, but it doesn't mean that it can't be true. Actually using this thought prosses answers questions that can't be answered by scientists right now.
    This sounds like a good item for the ATM forum. Present your idea, with supporting evidence, there and we can discuss it and ask questions about it. It is not, however, appropriate for the Q&A forum.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    This sounds like a good item for the ATM forum. Present your idea, with supporting evidence, there and we can discuss it and ask questions about it. It is not, however, appropriate for the Q&A forum.
    Van Rijn,
    If you have a question don't be afraid to ask.

    I also have an invisible elf trap 100% gauranteed to eliminate your elf problem in your backyard.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,215

    Cool Jack-in-the-Box energy has gravity, too

    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    If it has mass it has gravity. The more mass the more gravity. Density is not important. The sum total of mass of a galaxy exerts its gravity as a whole.
    Yes if a number of particles are large enough gravity will pull it into a sphere. Density will increase as mass increases.
    astromark. Energy has gravity, too. E=mc2. So, m=E/c2
    So if you have energy in the form of photons or neutrinos...that too has an equivalent mass. Suppose you have in your hand a box with some gas inside, and a few slightly greater than ~1.022 Mev photons....just enough to create electron/positron pairs. We magically give the box perfect internal wall mirrors, as suggested in another thread elsewhere, and add the additional condition that the atoms of the internal gas can facilitate the creation of the particle/antiparticle pairs, but not absorb any of the photon/neutrino energy as they do so. (We get to be control freaks here..but this is the sort of stuff theorists do).
    Now, we set the gears in motion. The traveling neutrinos/photons, chugging along at c, hit an atom and create a pair of particles with rest mass each of 511 kev, or 0.511 Mev....the electron, and the positron. Photon/neutrino energy of E=hv has "disappeared", simultaneously two particles with non-zero rest mass have"appeared". Is the box "heavier"? No.
    The two non-zero rest mass particles travel a bit and annihilate, back into the 1.022 photon/neutrino. Is the box lighter? No. The total mass/energy is constant. So the total gravitational field is constant. The strength of the gravitational force felt by you and the box in your hand is still Fg= G (mbox)(massyou) / (separation of centers of mass)2......we'll put you in space to eliminate Earth here.
    To think otherwise, whenever the pair forms, Fg goes up....and when they annihilate, Fg goes down. Now if we made our conditions more exotic with a much more energetic photon, or neutrino say 10Google ev....you'd have a wildly oscillating Fg. not going to happen. (Epstein, Thinking Physics...a great little book). As you sit with your hot meal...a hard boiled 212 F egg...it has a little more field than it does when it cools off by radiation, conduction and convection...no magic mirrors there.
    I need also to stipulate that the neutrinos in the box never mirror, when they form, they pair form as electron/positron and then annihilate back to photon before reaching the edge of the box....otherwise I'd be suggesting lepton number conservation failure, something never seen in a particle physicist's world. pete.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2007-Apr-16 at 10:16 PM. Reason: subscript boxed wrong..my fatigue is showing, apostophe

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,533
    For the second thing you need to know about gravity, do a web
    search for "Cavendish experiment".

    Different kinds of rock have different density, but typical is about
    three times the density of water, or a density of three. A rock with
    a density of three and a volume of one cubic meter has a mass of
    three thousand kilograms. A BIG rock with a density of three and a
    volume of one cubic kilometer has a mass of three trillion kilograms.
    A REALLY big rock of the same kind, comparable to the size of the
    Moon, with a volume of one trillion cubic kilometers, would have
    enough gravity to compress the rock in the interior slightly, so
    that it might have an overall density of 3.2, and its mass would
    be 3.2 x 10^24 kg.

    A larger body such as the planet Mercury or the Earth will be more
    compressed, and so will be even denser. Because Earth has a large
    iron core, and iron has a density of about seven, and the core and
    all the rest of the rock in the Earth is significantly compressed by
    the tremendous weight, Earth's overall density is about 5.5, the
    most dense of all the planets of the Solar System. Mercury is the
    next most dense at 5.4.

    But I'm not sure I understood your question.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    80
    What if the Earth was impacted by a dead star? Neutron or pulsar etc. would this affect the gravity. Is this even realistic?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kryton View Post
    What if the Earth was impacted by a dead star? Neutron or pulsar etc. would this affect the gravity. Is this even realistic?
    The earth would add a very thin layer to the neutron star. The mass of the earth is tiny compared to that of a neutron star, which would have roughly half a million to a million times as much mass. So the neutron star's gravity would be very slightly affected.

    But, while it is theoretically possible a neutron star could come rolling through the solar system, it is very, very unlikely.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The earth would add a very thin layer to the neutron star. The mass of the earth is tiny compared to that of a neutron star, which would have roughly half a million to a million times as much mass. So the neutron star's gravity would be very slightly affected.

    But, while it is theoretically possible a neutron star could come rolling through the solar system, it is very, very unlikely.
    Would a neutron star be of any danger to planet Earth IF it did approach our solar system?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by unknownspiritx View Post
    Would a neutron star be of any danger to planet Earth IF it did approach our solar system?
    If it got close enough, definitely.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Similar Threads

  1. center of gravity for the planet earth/core of the earth
    By hypergreatthing in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-26, 12:52 PM
  2. Earth's Gravity Seen in HD
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-29, 02:50 PM
  3. Is there any gravitational lensing for Earth bound telescopes,due to Earth's gravity?
    By Frog march in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-Sep-26, 04:15 AM
  4. If earth's gravity become 1/4th of the present gravity!
    By suntrack2 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-31, 08:45 AM
  5. New Gravity Map of Earth!
    By Tuckerfan in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-07, 01:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: