Does the Earth's Mass Change Due to Biological Processes?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Althepump
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether biological processes, such as the growth and decay of living organisms, affect the Earth's mass and its orbit around the Sun. Participants explore various aspects of mass change, including chemical reactions, energy conversion, and external contributions to Earth's mass.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the relevance of biological processes, such as the growth of plants and the decomposition of organic matter, on Earth's overall mass.
  • Others argue that while mass can be converted to energy through chemical reactions, the effects of these processes on Earth's mass are negligible due to the planet's steady state and the minuscule scale of changes.
  • One participant suggests that the most significant contributions to Earth's mass change come from the accretion of space debris, estimated at around 60 tons per day, which is still considered negligible in the grand scheme.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that everything happening inside a hypothetical spherical surface surrounding Earth does not affect its mass, while external factors do.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the idea that biological processes do not significantly contribute to mass change, citing the cumulative effect of waste from living organisms over millions of years.
  • There is discussion about the impact of solar energy collected by plants on Earth's mass, with some questioning whether this adds to the overall mass.
  • Concerns are raised about the effect of changes in Earth's mass on its orbit, with one participant noting that the Sun's mass is so much greater that it dominates the orbital dynamics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the significance of biological processes in changing Earth's mass. Some agree that external factors are more impactful, while others challenge this perspective, leading to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of their arguments, including the dependence on definitions of mass and energy, and the unresolved nature of the calculations regarding mass change over time.

  • #31
Althepump said:
Cutter Ketch,

Yesterday you brought up an interesting point. Mass convert to Energy. But this morning I ask myself " if it's true, why not the Earth convert to energy as well?
As others have said, mass-energy equivalence is a drop in the bucket -- irrelevant for this purpose.

What do you mean by "earth convert to energy"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Mass cannot suddenly disappear. Chemical and nuclear reactions release a tiny fraction of the mass of the involved atoms as energy. Most of the possible reactions happened in the past already.
 
  • #33
Bystander said:
"Does Earth mass get heavier?"
"Heavier" implies "weight," or force. Should we examine the implication? Given that the sun is losing mass at 1.5 million tons per second, the Earth should be losing "weight."

what is your reasoning there ??
 
  • #34
davenn said:
what is your reasoning there ??
Less attractive force between the Earth and the sun.
 
  • #35
Bystander said:
Less attractive force between the Earth and the sun.
Ah. I see what he did there.

The Earth's weight is determined by the Sun's gravity. Sun's mass is shrinking, so Earth's weight is shrinking
 
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
Ah. I see what he did there.

The Earth's weight is determined by the Sun's gravity. Sun's mass is shrinking, so Earth's weight is shrinking
But since the Earth is following a free-fall trajectory, it is technically weightless.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #37
Janus said:
a free-fall trajectory,
An expanding/growing free-fall trajectory; i.e., the force exerted by the sun is decreasing, so, technically less than weightless.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cutter Ketch
  • #38
Bystander said:
An expanding/growing free-fall trajectory; i.e., the force exerted by the sun is decreasing, so, technically less than weightless.

Oohhh! I like that. It's drifting up. It must be less than weightless! Ok, I don't think that's going in the textbooks anytime soon, but it's funny.
 
  • #39
Bystander said:
Less attractive force between the Earth and the sun.

DaveC426913 said:
The Earth's weight is determined by the Sun's gravity. Sun's mass is shrinking, so Earth's weight is shrinking

That mite affect the weight of the Earth but it doesn't affect the mass of the earth

and since the OP is talking about the MASS of the Earth ... it's weight in any gravity field is irrelevant
particularly in an orbit

hence Janus's response
Janus said:
But since the Earth is following a free-fall trajectory, it is technically weightless.
 
  • #40
As per my knowledge, having more people or trees doesn't add any mass to the planet. Humans and things are done with the matter that is already on the planet. It's just been transformed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K