Is the Mass of Earth Determined by Henry Cavendish's Method?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr.Socrates
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the determination of the Earth's mass, particularly referencing Henry Cavendish's method. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including misconceptions about the mass of humans relative to the Earth's total mass, and the implications of mass changes over time.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the mass of the Earth should be considered as approximately double the commonly accepted value, proposing a relationship between human mass and Earth's mass.
  • Another participant counters that the mass of humans does not change the Earth's mass, as all matter in the human body originated from the Earth.
  • Some participants provide calculations to illustrate that the mass of humans is negligible compared to the Earth's mass, estimating it to be virtually zero percent of the total mass.
  • There is a discussion about whether the total mass of the Earth is increasing or decreasing due to energy absorption from the sun and other factors.
  • Several participants express amazement at the sheer size of the Earth in comparison to human mass.
  • One participant shares their admiration for Henry Cavendish's method of determining the Earth's mass, indicating a historical interest in the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the implications of human mass on the Earth's total mass, with some asserting that it is negligible while others propose a different perspective. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of mass changes over time.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about mass calculations and the definitions of mass in relation to human bodies and the Earth. The discussion does not resolve the complexities of these assumptions.

Mr.Socrates
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
All Of Us Know Most Of The Constants In Physics Have A Constant Mass Of Earth Used...

Is It True That Mass Of Earth The Same Or Approximately The Same ...

My Prediction Is It Will Be Twice The Mass Calculated And All The Nearby Quantities Will Be 1/2 The Orginal Value...

The Reason Y I Say This Very Simple ... Assume The Mass Of Earth Is X Billion Kilos... The No Of Humans In Earth Be X Billion... Let The Mass Of A Human Be The Least 1 Kg Then The Mass Of Earth Is = Mass Of Earth + Mass Of Human Beings.

If U Start To Reply As Approximation ... The Word Approximately Means It Should Be Any Were Near By...
Not The Difference This Big...
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
So some how, as I gain weight, that weight was not part of the Earth's mass before I gained it... Tell me where did it come from? Mars? The Moon?

The mass of the inhabitants of the Earth do not change the mass of the earth. All of the matter which is incorporated into your body as you grow was part of, and always will be part of the Earth's mass. Unless of course you die in deep space.
 
A couple of misconceptions.

As Integral mentioned, any mass in the human body came from the planet Earth, so there is no net change due to the number of humans.

The mass of the Earth is 6 x 10^24. There are about 6.6 billion humans with an average mass of about 75 kg. This totals up to about 5 x 10^11 kg. To find the percentage of the Earth's mass that is made up of humans, just divide the total human mass by the Earth's mass and multiply by 100. It's virtually zero.
 
BobG said:
To find the percentage of the Earth's mass that is made up of humans, just divide the total human mass by the Earth's mass and multiply by 100. It's virtually zero.
I think we're overpopulating.

Anybody ever drive through Oklahoma? Or the midwest? EMPTY, GOOD land. NO BODY there.
 
Although it makes you wonder...is the total mass of the Earth increasing or decreasing (since the planet absorbs energy from the sun and reradiates some into space). I wonder what the net loss/gain is?
 
Mr.Socrates said:
All Of Us Know Most Of The Constants In Physics Have A Constant Mass Of Earth Used...
Is It True That Mass Of Earth The Same Or Approximately The Same ...
My Prediction Is It Will Be Twice The Mass Calculated And All The Nearby Quantities Will Be 1/2 The Orginal Value...
The Reason Y I Say This Very Simple ... Assume The Mass Of Earth Is X Billion Kilos... The No Of Humans In Earth Be X Billion... Let The Mass Of A Human Be The Least 1 Kg Then The Mass Of Earth Is = Mass Of Earth + Mass Of Human Beings.
If U Start To Reply As Approximation ... The Word Approximately Means It Should Be Any Were Near By...
Not The Difference This Big...

Mass of Earth is X billion kilos, sure, if "X" = 6,000,000,000,000,000.
 
BobG said:
A couple of misconceptions.
As Integral mentioned, any mass in the human body came from the planet Earth, so there is no net change due to the number of humans.
The mass of the Earth is 6 x 10^24. There are about 6.6 billion humans with an average mass of about 75 kg. This totals up to about 5 x 10^11 kg. To find the percentage of the Earth's mass that is made up of humans, just divide the total human mass by the Earth's mass and multiply by 100. It's virtually zero.
To put it in even more perspective:
Even if you imagined that the whole Earth, oceans included, was covered with people at a population density equal to that of Tokyo, the total mass of humanity would still only be about 2x10^{16} kg. Compare that to the mass of the Earth, 6x10^{24} kg ,and the mass of the people would still only be 0.000000328% that of the Earth.
 
The following conclusion seems warranted:
The Earth is big, really, really
BIG!
 
arildno said:
The following conclusion seems warranted:
The Earth is big, really, really
BIG!

I've seen bigger... :-p
 
  • #10
I have just read the extremely interesting story of how the mass of the Earth was first determined in 1798 by Henry Cavendish, and I must say I am extremely impressed. It would not have occurred to me to figure it out this way, or any way, in a thousand years.
 

Similar threads

Pangea Ultima
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Maryborough meteorite
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Saving Our Future Earth: Keeping Our Planet in the Goldilocks Zone
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad New Developments In The Search For Planet X
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Earth ellipsoid due to rotation
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
Undergrad Balloon experiment - Classical Physics vs. Statistical Physics
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Calc Excess Rad on Earth in Curved 3D Space | Feynman Lectures 6-2
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
High School The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Issues with Apollo 11 TLI Simulation – Discrepancies in Return Orbit
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Recovering Newton's energy conservation law for an Earth's lab
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K