Content deleted Content added
Line 23:
A contemporary model of what gravitational acceleration looks like at the center of a gravity well should consider the relative time as time dilation and acceleration are interconnected whereas Gravity can sometimes be confused with mass.
We can use identical atomic clocks to map our gravity well's acceleration curve above ground and off into deep space. We'll have to theorize when solving for acceleration from the surface
''• "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. Einstein showed us that
In this PREM chart there is no consideration for relative time. It's a Newtonian notion of mass attracting mass that has them arriving at an acceleration of zero at the core. This makes the PREM chart for acceleration incorrect.
Here is the principle error
• ''gravity depends only on the mass inside the sphere of radius r -wiki.com''
The total depth of the well depends on the total mass in the gravity well. The acceleration is a function of the radial distance from the center of the gravity well decreasing as a function of [/r²].
This increase continues from space right to the center of the core. All the mass present is driving the depth of the well, not just the mass under the point of measurement. It's not about weightlessness, it's about the stretching and slowing of the 4th dimension, 'time' by the presence of a large mass the closer you get to its center. ''• 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru (Larger radius, more mass)''
Line 39 ⟶ 43:
''• 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean (smaller radius, less mass)''
What 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.
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
Line 49 ⟶ 53:
Earth’s surface acceleration is now over 10 m/s² due to being in a deeper gravity well without gaining any significant volume and time at the core just got a little bit slower.
An acceleration tapering to zero at the core is a physics recipe for a hollow Earth rather than the home for the densest matter
Thanks, Joe[[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:41D:2010:9898:C682:F5C5:EBAE|2605:59C8:41D:2010:9898:C682:F5C5:EBAE]] ([[User talk:2605:59C8:41D:2010:9898:C682:F5C5:EBAE|talk]]) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
| |||