Talk:Preliminary reference Earth model
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Newtonian methodology
This theoretical chart is incorrect.
Acceleration does not go to zero within the center of a gravity well. Acceleration will be highest at the core
The author's are confused about newtonian notions of mass attracting mass equating to some kind of balanced zero g state at the core.
This is hopelessly incorrect. It's not about weight, it's about time.
General Relativity explains how mass tells space time how to curve. For our frame of reference motionless on the earth, our straightest path through curved space time is a line entering the top of our head, out our feet and straight to the core. The deeper it goes the greater the acceleration experienced and the greater the time dilation.
As you descend, the accumulation of less dense matter directly above you is negligible when compared to all the mass that comprises the gravity well
as a thought experiment, even with two identical earth's in binary orbit of each other, the presence of one above may make you weigh less, but your acceleration and hence your time dilation at your ___location is unchanged
Gravity Wells are stratified by density with the densest matter in the core and helium and hydrogen in the upper atmosphere
There's a theoretical paper (not handy, Google it) on the age of the core of the earth being younger than the crust. This is due to the increased acceleration there causing time to run slower than at the surface.
As modeled in the above chart, a clock would run faster at the core than it would in orbit, that's silly. You can't use a 300 year old methodology that is ignorant of time in place of the more accurate, more difficult to work with GR.
acceleration is definitely higher at the core than at the surface
Thanks Joe 2605:59C8:41D:2010:D054:3FF:FE32:767 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)