Talk:Preliminary reference Earth model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:15, 24 October 2024

Revision as of 16:56, 25 October 2024

Line 7:

My subject here is gravity wells and their composition.

Gravity is a fascinating subject for me. The fact that we don’t quite understand one of the 4 fundamental forces is tantalizing. Some of this is due to antiquated assumptions which have garnered attentionmy hereattention. TheWe're lucky because the best place to look for and understand gravity is right here on Earth. We have gravity AND the internet.

• ''Gravity can be explained by Newton’s law of universal gravitation, which states that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them [/r²]. Gravity can also be understood by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which states that gravity is a result of curvature in space-time caused by the mass of an object -www.uu.edu.''

Line 19:

''• Gravity on the Earth's surface varies from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean'''

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.

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 attracting mass such as in orbits. To consider a gravity well's composition we must consider time. It's the 4th dimension, time that is getting stretched and slowed by the total mass present.

We can use identical atomic clocks to map our gravity well's acceleration curve abovefrom groundthe andsurface off into deep space. We'll have to theorize when solving for acceleration from the surface down. 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''

Line 29:

Time cannot be slower at the core and simultaneously be at zero acceleration. Einstein showed us that increasing time dilation and increasing acceleration are linked. That means that if the core has a slower time than the surface it also must have a faster acceleration.

In this PREM chart there is no consideration for relative time. It's a Newtonian notion of mass attracting mass that has themthe researchers arriving at an acceleration of zero at the core. This makes the PREM chart for acceleration incorrect.

Here is the principal error

Line 35:

• ''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 at a given point is a function of all the mass comprising the well and the radial distance from the center of the gravity well decreasing in strength as a function of [/r²]. All the mass present is driving the depth of the well, not just the mass under theyour point of measurementradial. It's not about weightlessness, it's about the stretching and slowing of the 4th dimension, 'time' by the presence of a large mass. For a stationary object on earth's surface, your warped space time line is a radial extending from the center of the core, through you and in a straight line out into deep space. That stetched radial is the time dimension of 4d space-time

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

Line 49:

Now start the simulation and let the moon go. The deepest portion of Earth’s core and the center of the softball-sized moon will quickly displace the less dense materials between them and merge, with the little moon traveling the most distance and the core moving slightly for the merging. There will be some oscillation as the gravity well attains hydrostatic equilibrium again, but the dropped "softball moon" will quickly occupy the core, driving the Earth’s well ever deeper with its added mass. And due to its ultra-density, it will reside at the point of greatest acceleration - the center.

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 theall core justpoints 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

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)

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)