View previous topic :: View next topic 
Author 
Message 
Time Clock
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 47 Location: Vancouver, WA

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:14 am Post subject: The weight of the moon 


Just wondering 
If we are so high that we are standing on a space station platform in orbit, we'd be weightless. If we are so low that we are at the very center of the earth, assuming there's a little bubble there that we could exist in we'd be weightless there, too. This leads me to believe that we are the heaviest right on the earth's surface, and if we go higher or lower by whatever means we become lighter.
What I don't know is if we're heaviest at sea level or on Mount Everest. Or if the difference is detectable. 

Back to top 


Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instantpostcardcollection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos? Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat? You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.


jabailo
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 Posts: 1273 Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:26 am Post subject: 


Maybe another way to look at it is what is the energy required to achieve escape velocity from the point at which we are standing. 

Back to top 


Time Clock
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 47 Location: Vancouver, WA

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject: escape velocity 


Interesting. Suppose we dug a theoretical hole 10 miles deep, would it take less energy to achieve escape velocity from that lower starting point? You'd have less gravity to overcome, but you still have to go past ground zero at which point you'd have maximum gravity, but some momentum to slide by it with...
Hmmm 

Back to top 


jabailo
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 Posts: 1273 Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: 


F = Gm1m2 / r^2
So, ordinarily you imagine m(ass) 1 and m(ass) 2 as single points.
Now with you (m1) below the Earth (m2), you might imagine spiting the Earth, with a secant and then m2 = m2' + m2'', the mass "above" and "below" you.
So you have
F = F'  F'' = (Gm1m2'  Gm1m2'')/r^2 = Gm1(m2'  m2'') / r^2.
So the total gravity on you is the difference between the mass above and below you.
For escape velocity, you'd have to overcome getting away from m2''  but as you lifted off, m2' would be helping you (less and less).
Once you reached the surface you're then dealing with m2 (excluding the air).
Rotation plays a part...that's why they put launch pads as close to the equator as possible. 

Back to top 


Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instantpostcardcollection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos? Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat? You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.


Time Clock
Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 47 Location: Vancouver, WA

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:35 am Post subject: The math of it all 


Thank you for the formula behind some of that! On first pass reading your formulas I have to admit I sort of glazed over till you said
Quote:  So the total gravity on you is the difference between the mass above and below you.

Which makes complete sense, so the second time reading it through it just made logical sense.
Is r rotation or radius (or something else)? If it's radius it may deal with the factor that much of the mass of the earth is neither above nor below you; it is more to the side of you. On top of Mt Everest for example more of it would be below you and therefore the energy more focused, but also farther away and therefore slightly weaker.
My guess is you would weigh less on Mt Everest but I could see it going the other way too. 

Back to top 


jabailo
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 Posts: 1273 Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: 


Yes, I woke up this morning thinking about the r and wondering if I got that wrong!
But again, I think the idea is to tread the masses as single points. Now, being "inside" the earth messes that up, but if you divide it into two masses, above and below, then you can still say they are two points (like being squeezed between two planents on either side of you, one big, one smaller.
Now since the points are right next to you, if you were to do that, the r divisor would be 0 (or approach zero) and F would approach infinity! 

Back to top 


