What is Digg?246 Comments
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -28/+129Just got here....anybody blame Bush yet?
- InfiniteNothing, on 11/13/2007, -10/+93Gravity can only change if the mass changes no?
- ninetimes, on 11/13/2007, -2/+59What the hell? This "article" is 4 paragraphs of rambling that doesn't seem to understand the difference between a gravitational field and a magnetic field.
- CraigJ, on 11/13/2007, -0/+50So, gravity is basically is basically the attraction of mass to mass, which is affected by density. without removing a significant portion of the earth's mass, gravity will not change.
FTA: Gunther Bildmeyer is his name and he says that “In this day Earth’s magnetic field is in fact 10% weaker than it was 150 years ago when the first measurements were conducted and it is getting weaker faster and faster”. “Should this be the case then a hundred years from now people are going to float here just as astronauts”.
Note to Gunther: Gravity != Magnetic fields.
Is ZME Science related to the Onion or something? - xtmno3, on 11/13/2007, -3/+47Not sure, anyone claim Ron Paul will fix it yet?
- Wiini, on 11/13/2007, -22/+62Just got here... anybody blame Global Warming yet?
- gnick, on 11/14/2007, -4/+42Either a change in mass or a change in the relative distance to the center of mass. The only way this could work is:
a) We don't understand how gravity works (we do - well enough anyway.)
b) The earth is shedding and reacquiring mass (it's not - at least not appreciable amounts.)
c) The earth is expanding and contracting changing the distance from its center to its shell (I have no idea - I didn't RTFA.) - alittleroy101, on 11/14/2007, -10/+40Who diggs this *****?
- DemonWasp, on 11/13/2007, -1/+26Well, since we already know about a) and b), let's examine c):
Since force of gravity on an object of mass m is: G * M(mass of earth) * m / r^2, we can figure out how much the Earth would have to expand/contract in order to change the force of gravity by 10%.
So we'd have: 0.9 * G * M * m / r1 ^ 2 = G * M * m / r2 ^ 2
Simplifying: 0.9 / r1 ^ 2 = 1 / r2 ^ 2
So: 0.9 * r2 ^ 2 = r1 ^ 2
So r2 ~= 1.054 * r1
The Earth would have to expand and contract by a whole 5%. Not unfeasible, but there'd best be a good explanation of how the hell we come up with that kind of force.
This has been your physics/math lesson for the day, thank you and enjoy the afternoon. - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/13/2007, -7/+31Apparently, the gravity is only getting stronger here on this comment thread.
- coolian, on 11/13/2007, -3/+26Bastards...just when I thought going to the gym was working wonders.
- IcarusAngelus, on 11/13/2007, -1/+19Where is "Bury for mindless drivel"?
- mikerand, on 11/12/2007, -1/+18Correct. Magnetic fields have nothing to do with gravity.
- Wiini, on 11/13/2007, -10/+26... and I was just telling my wife I had NO idea how I had lost so much weight!
- terminal157, on 11/12/2007, -0/+13I feel dumber :(
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/12/2007, -1/+12No, but it could explain why I mysteriously lost 10 pounds this week...
- slashbot, on 11/13/2007, -3/+13Very weak? Talk about overstatement....
- Jelfish, on 11/12/2007, -0/+9That's not true at all. It doesn't matter how close or far from the center of the earth the dense metal is. So long as it happens throughout all of earth (i.e. the process is radially symmetric), the gravitational force would be the same as if all of the mass of the Earth were compacted at the center. I can't really prove this without going into vector calculus, but if you look up Gauss' Law for gravitational fields, you'll find that you can find the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass distribution by summing the mass within a chosen closed spherical surface co-centric with the mass distribution and with radius at the desired distance from that distribution (usually distance from center to surface). It's completely independent of a radially changing density. (and yes, I know the Earth isn't a perfect sphere)
- Scynet, on 11/13/2007, -2/+10Actually we don't really understand a damn thing about gravity. We don't know what it is, or what causes it, all we know is the effect and that it has to do with mass, whatever THAT is. The string theory considers the possibility that gravity is a force that "leaks" into other dimensions. On the other hand, the yet-to-be-completed Large Hadron Collider could reveal the Higg's particle, which would mean a field exists in the universe, like a magnetic field, and by interacting and flowing in it matter gains mass. However, we don't really know yet, and gravity remains the anomalous mystery in the otherwise nice set of laws of physics we have.
- carnage, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7the article is about magnetic fields, which are not gravity. in the article however, they have quoted the scientist saying "Should this be the case then a hundred years from now people are going to float here just as astronauts". so apparently, the scientist doesnt not know the difference between electromagnetic and gravitational force, or the author of the article left out some critical information.
- ggtsu, on 11/13/2007, -2/+9Yes. This Austrian "physicist" knows nothing of physics. He's just like all those people who think that gravity is caused by the spin of the Earth.
- elvenseven, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7Yes, when they introduce a new Global Gravity Tax.
- LeeSoong, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3 cm per year - and when it moves away far enough, Earth's nice stable tilt will begin to wobble horrifically (read - death of all life).
Luckily, that is going to take a long, long time at a rate of 3 cm per year...
[According to the documentary science TV show: 'What if there were no Moon?' ]
The Moon's pull stabilizes our Earth, without the Moon all life will die. - inactive, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6http://digg.com/space/Earth_s_gravity_could_be_get ...
- Mousse, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6This story should be buried as inaccurate.
- nekochan, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6you win this article's wtf award. it was hard, since you had a lot of opponents, including the article itself.
congratulations and go read a book. - DemonWasp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Oh god, so much awful physics here.
@AlphaOmega: Scientists always get things wrong, and when they figure out why they're wrong, they correct their theories. They never stop doing this, which is how we can learn. People being born does NOT increase mass, it simply shuffles it around - atoms in the food consumed by the mother during pregnancy are assembled into the cells of the new baby. Nowhere is additional mass added.
@thespice: photosynthesis does NOT turn energy into mass. Photosynthesis is a chemical process that takes molecules with low chemical potential energy and converts them, using sunlight into different molecules with higher potential energy - it "stores" the energy in the sunlight as chemical energy in sugars and other carbohydrates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis ).
@zephc: Thank you for not being an absolute retard. As you said, all of life is just a redistribution of molecules and atoms that were already part of the Earth, and in any case the Earth's mass is very nearly constant, as what little space rock we gather is dwarfed by the 5.97 * 10 ^ 24 kg of Earth we have. - drgreenberg, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5Any sphere of a given mass will generate the same gravitational field at a given distance from the center of the sphere, as long as this distance is a point outside the sphere itself. So, it doesn't matter if mass moves from being concentrated at the core to being distributed in a shell just below the crust. As long as you're above the surface of the planet, there's no affect at all on gravity. That is, it's the distance from you to the center of mass that determnes how hard gravity pulls on you, not the distance from you to the mass itself.
- wushu18t, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5it's getting so strong it'll form a "cone of ignorance"
- wrockwood, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5buried as ridiculous.
- wushu18t, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6**runs to mcdonalds**
- goblindegook, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Correction: This story should be buried as retarded.
- Neiby, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4So, you apparently agree with article and think that a changing magnetic field also magically affects gravity?
- robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Im in yr plannit steelin yr gravutee
- mattwalton56, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5Did Al Gore make this up too?
- nekochan, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4so. the terr'rists are stealing our gravity?
- lobster1234, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Has anyone actually read this article? Its so unbelievably stupid. Although the magnetic field of the Earth is measurably varying, magnetic fields don't hold you on Earth. It is only the mass beneath the surface that sets the gravitational force at the surface, not the distribution of the masses.
Buried for being completely retarded. - GreyICE, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4In fairness, for no particular reason, the article title talks about gravity, despite the fact that this is a theory about the MAGNETIC field. I'm inclined to think intense levels of retardation are the best explanation for the article's title. Either the scientist is dumber than toast (possible) or the blog writer is dumber than toast (seems more likely).
- FrankButcher, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Not unless you are a big piece of iron, the article (has anyone actually READ it?) states its the earths magnetic field thats getting weaker, which has FA to do with gravity. Bravo!
- DemonWasp, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Bill Nye? I'd wager he'd do something silly, then have an important lesson about science. How about this lesson: "Don't believe everything you hear" ?
I honestly have some doubts about the veracity of both the reporting on this and whether this guy is doing real science or just carefully manipulating ***** to get himself some fame. - DemonWasp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3A whole lot of places use the period, rather than the comma, to denote breaks in numbers. When they say 700.000 there they probably mean what you'd call 700,000 and I'd call 700 000.
- Scienceisfun, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Or the gravitational constant, which would be astonishing.
- vertinox, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3The article says the denser mass is moving to the center of the earth which provides more distance from the surface. Distance of course is pretty obvious thing for how gravity affects you. Like standing on the Sun vs standing on the moon. Of course, it is kind of dubious why iron is all going to center of the earth.
- zombies187, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3I was at a book signing where the author suggested that millions of years ago the earth was physically larger and therefore the surface was farther away from the gravitational pull of the earth. He claimed that as the earth gradually collapsed on itself, dinosaurs were no longer able to live because of stronger gravity. He claimed that it was otherwise unexplainable how long necked dinosaurs were able to lift their heads. And that this "fact" has been used to "disprove" dinosaurs. He asked us why elephants seem to need to shift their weight constantly. He then suggested that elephants evolved in a weaker gravitational field and that if it got much stronger they would die off. He went on to say that if it got strong enough to kill humans, BUGS would take over the planet!
Is that some crazy talk or what? - Clp727, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5And I thought I was losing weight...
- rootnik, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4http://digg.com/space/Earth_s_gravity_could_be_get ...
- FrankButcher, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Its plain wrong: the physicist talks about magnetic fields; not gravity.
- Eallan, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Apparently so were about 5 other people.
- WNW3, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Well I sure as hell feel smarter now!
- footodors, on 11/12/2007, -2/+53 big macs, please. I need the extra weight
-
Show 51 - 100 of 248 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is