Diameter of Earth-like planet / gravitational force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between the mass and diameter of an Earth-like planet and the resulting gravitational force experienced by an average person. Participants explore how changes in mass and radius affect weight on the planet's surface, considering assumptions about density and composition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how much more massive the Earth would need to be for an average person to weigh 50 more pounds, suggesting a need for calculations based on average weights.
  • Another participant notes that there isn't a single answer, indicating that both decreasing the radius while keeping mass constant or increasing mass while keeping radius constant could achieve the desired increase in weight.
  • A participant proposes that if the average person weighs 165 pounds and needs to weigh 215 pounds, gravity must increase by a factor of 215/165, leading to a suggested increase in radius and diameter by about 30% under certain assumptions.
  • Another participant challenges this logic, stating that increasing the radius by 30% would also necessitate an increase in mass, which complicates the calculations.
  • Further contributions discuss the relationship between gravitational force, mass, and radius, with references to relevant equations and proportionalities.
  • One participant provides insights on using symbols for density in equations and mentions tools for formatting mathematical expressions in the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and assumptions regarding the relationship between mass, radius, and weight. There is no consensus on the correct approach or final answer, as multiple competing perspectives are presented.

Contextual Notes

Assumptions about density and chemical composition are made, but the implications of these assumptions on the calculations are not fully resolved. The discussion also highlights the complexity of gravitational relationships without reaching a definitive conclusion.

chris2112
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I kind of have a stupid question. How much more massive would the Earth have to be for the average person to weigh about 50 more pounds? How much bigger could the Earth's diameter be? Thanks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
There isn't a single number. Decreasing the radius of the Earth while keeping the mass the same would increase the weight of a person on the surface. You could also keep the Earth the same radius but increase the mass to get the same effect. Or any combination of the two.
 
chris2112 said:
I kind of have a stupid question. How much more massive would the Earth have to be for the average person to weigh about 50 more pounds? How much bigger could the Earth's diameter be? Thanks.

Let's say average weight for women is 145 pounds and for men 185 pounds and average "person" weighs 165 pounds.

Lets say "earth-like" means roughly same DENSITY because roughly same chemical composition---iron core, rocky mantle, crust etc etc.

So you want the size for which the 165 pound person will weigh 50 more pounds, or 215. So you want gravity to be stronger by a factor of 215/165.

So you want the RADIUS to increase by that same factor.

So calculate what 215/165 is. About 1.3.

So with those assumptions (about "average person" and "earth-like") the answer is that the radius would need to be about 30% bigger.
IOW the diameter would need to be about 30% bigger.
 
Last edited:
marcus, I am not following your logic. Ifd the radius increased by 30%, the mass would increase by 2.2. Are you accounting for that?
 
DaveC426913 said:
marcus, I am not following your logic. Ifd the radius increased by 30%, the mass would increase by 2.2. Are you accounting for that?
You'd also be 30% farther away from the centre of the gravitational field. Marcus is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TEFLing
G ~ M/R^2
Surface gravityp ~ M/R^3
Density

G ~ p x R
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: marcus
True, TEFL. The surface gravity is proportional to the density times the radius.

BTW at the top of the blank space where we write replies there is this line of symbols B I U ... Σ
and if you click on the the Σ you get a convenient menu of symbols including the lowercase Greek rho (ρ) which is normally used for density.

There's also an x2 symbol you can click on to write superscripts. So your second equation could be written ρ ~ M/R3

You may have discovered this already, but in case not I wanted to mention it. Very handy.

I do write the ^ for superscripts when I want to use the google calculator, to be able to paste the formula into the google window and have it evaluate it. The calculator likes to have exponents written in the x^2 form. But for purely human consumption it looks better to use the PF symbols gadget.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TEFLing

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K