Talk:Preliminary reference Earth model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:21, 23 October 2024

Revision as of 22:54, 23 October 2024

Line 21:

The oblate flattening of the earth results in an equatorial bulge that sees the equator on average 21 kilometers further away from the center of this gravity well than the poles. There is more mass underfoot at the equator, but less acceleration.

You cannot develop aA contemporary theorymodel of what gravitational acceleration looks like at the center of a gravity well withoutshould consideringconsider the relative time. as time dilation and acceleration are interconnected

This is a clue to the yet to be revealed error that we can measure a higher acceleration at the poles where there is less physical matter underneath us than at the top of an equatorial mountain where there's kilometers more mass between us and the center.

You cannot develop a contemporary theory of what gravitational acceleration looks like at the center of a gravity well without considering the relative time.

''• Researchers have built an atomic clock that is more precise and accurate than any previous clock. For the first time, the clock can detect the effects of gravity predicted by the theory of general relativity at the microscopic scale.-nist.gov''

The most accurate way of measuring acceleration is with the use of identical atomic clocks measured at different distances from the center of a gravity well. Therefore, theOur first question that we should ask when solving for acceleration at the core is, "What time is it there?” We can’t send a clock to the core, but we have approached this topic in scientific literature.

''• "A trio of researchers in Denmark has calculated the relative ages of the surface of the Earth versus its core and has found that the core is 2.5 years younger than the crust. [it's likely considerably younger than even this] During one of his famous lectures at Caltech in the 1960's, Richard Feynman remarked that due to time dilation, the Earth's core is actually younger than its crust. General relativity suggests that really big objects, like planets and stars, actually warp the fabric of spacetime, which results in a gravitational pull capable of slowing down time. Thus, an object closer to Earth's center would feel a stronger pull—a clock set near the core would run slower than one placed at the surface, which means that the material that makes up the core is actually younger than the material that makes up the crust. In this new effort, the research trio ran the math to discover the actual number involved. They found that over the course of our planet's 4.5-billion-year history, the pull of gravity causes the core to be approximately 2.5 years younger than the crust—ignoring geological processes, of course." -phys.org''

Time cannot be slower at the core and simultaneously be at zero acceleration. That'sEinstein notshowed howus relativitythat works. mass slowsIncreasing time, sloweddilation timeand increasesincreasing acceleration and vice versa. They are interlinkedlinked.

In this PREM chart there is no consideration for relative time, and it therefore falls victim to antiquated thinking. It's a Newtonian notion of mass attracting mass that has usthem arriving at an acceleration of zero at the core. This makes the PREM chart for acceleration incorrect.

Acceleration would continue to increase the closer an observer got to the center. This is because the entire mass present is contributing to the depth of the well (in 4 dimensional spacetime) a well which is deepest at its center.

• ''gravity depends only on the mass inside the sphere of radius r -wiki.com''

AccelerationThe (gravity)total depth of the well depends on the total mass in the gravity well. andThe acceleration is a function of the radial distance from the center of the gravity well. Acceleration will increase and time will commensurately slow the closer an observer gets to the center. This would be detectable by atomic clocks at differing radial distances. This increase continues from space right to center of the core. All the mass present is driving the depth of the well, not just the mass under the point of measurement.

All the mass present is driving the depth of the well, not just the mass under the point of measurement.

''• 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru (Larger radius, more mass)''

Line 47 ⟶ 41:

''• 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean (smaller radius, less mass)''

It’s not about weightlessness, it’s about time, whatWhat do identical clocks say at increasing depths? They will say that time is predictably slowing all the way to the core and acceleration is therfore increasing just as it does above the surface. The notion that insignificant amount of less dense matter directly above you could somehow counteract the mass of the whole is a big miss.

As a thought experiment, consider the Earth, as it is with its stratified layers - a dense core with progressively less dense layers on top until you get to the crust and out into the stratified atmosphere. Now take the moon and shrink it down to the size of a softball. Retain the mass of the moon, but now it’s close to a neutron star in density. Hit pause and hold this ultra-dense object directly over the surface of the Earth