Counterbalancing the tilt of earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter infoharsha23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Tilt
AI Thread Summary
The construction of the Three Gorges Dam has been linked to a minor shift in the Earth's pole and a negligible effect on its rotation, quantified as a change of 60 billionths of a second per rotation. While some argue that another dam could counterbalance this shift, the changes caused by large earthquakes are significantly more impactful, altering the Earth's rotation by millionths of a second. The Three Gorges Dam's influence is minimal, with a recorded pole shift of only 0.8 inches. Additionally, the concept of North and South holds relevance due to the Earth's rotation dynamics. Overall, the potential for counterbalancing the tilt through another dam remains theoretical and unproven.
infoharsha23
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Recent NASA study has shown that the construction of Three Gorges Dam in China has contributed to shift in the pole thus increase in the tilt of the axis of rotation. Now my doubt is, can this tilt or shift in pole be restored by constructing another similar dam in diametrically opposite direction of Three Gorges?

Some important things related to planet needs to be considered:

1. All objects on the planet are subjected to Newtonian Gravity directed towards center of earth.

2. Earth is rotating and not stationary

3. Directions, North and South are meaningless in space

I hope some expert would give the best answer for the counterbalancing of the tilt and shift in pole axis.

Advance thanks,

Harsha
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The NASA scientists Chao and Gross calculated that the filling of the Three Gorges Dam would affect the rotation, not the tilt, of the Earth by 60 billionths of a second per rotation.

They also calculated that the Sumatra earthquake sped up the planet by a few millionths of a second. That's a 1000x larger effect. And motions within the molten core of the planet can change the rotation by thousandths of a second.
 
Why?

The change is incredibly small, too small to be measurable. It is a calculated result. The changes in the Earth's rotation rate and rotation axis due to large (very large) earthquakes are much bigger than those caused by the Three Gorges Dam -- and those earthquake-induced changes are also calculated rather than measured changes.
 
Fine, in fact the same study has said that the Three Gorges Dam has caused a shift in pole by 0.8 inch.

Even going by hypothetical case, that the Three Gorges Dam has tilted or shifted the pole, can it be counterbalanced by another dam in diametrically opposite location to Three Gorges Dam, please I need this answer precisely.

Advance thanks

Harsha
 
infoharsha23 said:
Fine, in fact the same study has said that the Three Gorges Dam has caused a shift in pole by 0.8 inch.

Reference, please?
 
North and South are not meaningless in space. Though linear constant velocity is relative, rotation is not. That is because a rotating object is continually undergoing acceleration.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top