Gravitational pull at the center of the Earth

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the gravitational pull at the center of the Earth, exploring theoretical implications, experimental evidence, and the validity of established theories such as the shell theorem. Participants question the nature of gravity inside a spherical mass and whether existing theories have been empirically validated through direct experimentation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the lack of direct experimental proof regarding gravitational behavior inside the Earth, questioning whether gravity decreases as one approaches the center.
  • Others argue that the shell theorem, which describes gravitational effects inside a spherical shell, is well-established through Newton's laws, although they acknowledge it remains a theorem rather than an absolute fact.
  • A participant suggests that the absence of drilling to the Earth's center limits the ability to empirically validate gravitational theories, comparing it to weighing objects on the Moon without having done so.
  • Some contributions propose alternative hypotheses regarding the formation of planets, including the idea of micro black holes influencing gravitational clumping, which introduces additional complexity to the discussion.
  • There are references to the need for a better understanding of physics to address these questions, indicating that laypeople may struggle with the non-intuitive nature of gravitational theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of gravitational theories and the need for empirical evidence. Some express confidence in established theories, while others call for proof and question the applicability of these theories in the context of gravitational behavior inside the Earth.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of empirical data from drilling to the Earth's center and the dependence on theoretical frameworks to interpret any potential measurements. The discussion also highlights the unresolved nature of gravitational behavior in different contexts.

  • #31
OK I give up. Apparently thinking outside the box is not allowed here. So for myself I'm bringing this to a close.

On the topic of Jupiter, yes I know that is the accepted theory. But, I was asking to postulate a new theory on planet formation not accepted theory on why we have what we have. And in terms of speculation, think with the new theories that we now have in place (accepted or not), not with theories that were used 30 years ago that helped form the current theory on planet formation.

Recall, Einstein literally woke up one morning with that great Aha moment and 6 weeks later we had a very famous equation. I'm not going to even begin to suggest that would happen here. But I have found in my own field of research, that occasionally throwing out accepted theory can lead (sometimes) to some pretty interesting concepts.

So guys, good bye and fun exploring.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Secant said:
OK I give up. Apparently thinking outside the box is not allowed here.
Thinking outside box is a tool for certain situations. You are using the wrong tool for the job. You are providing a solution to a non-problem. Thinking outside the box is inappropraite if the answer is inside the box.

And even if there weren't a satisfactory answer for this problem, what you are doing is not simply looking outside the box, you're looking in the next county. Why not look within a few feet of the box before getting on your bike and peddling?
 
  • #33
Secant said:
OK I give up. Apparently thinking outside the box is not allowed here. So for myself I'm bringing this to a close.

On the topic of Jupiter, yes I know that is the accepted theory. But, I was asking to postulate a new theory on planet formation not accepted theory on why we have what we have. And in terms of speculation, think with the new theories that we now have in place (accepted or not), not with theories that were used 30 years ago that helped form the current theory on planet formation.

Recall, Einstein literally woke up one morning with that great Aha moment and 6 weeks later we had a very famous equation. I'm not going to even begin to suggest that would happen here. But I have found in my own field of research, that occasionally throwing out accepted theory can lead (sometimes) to some pretty interesting concepts.

So guys, good bye and fun exploring.

Before you can think outside of the box you must know where the sides of the box are. You are not thinking outside of the box, in reality you are simply lost in a dark, dusty corner. When we try to turn on a light, you close your eyes.
 
  • #34
if you drill a hole to the center of the Earth and out the other side.

you drop your sack of bananas it will drop quickly to the center and pass it, then it will oscillate back to the center and pass it, then oscillate back to the center,...etc. forever
 
  • #35
rsala004 said:
if you drill a hole to the center of the Earth and out the other side.

you drop your sack of bananas it will drop quickly to the center and pass it, then it will oscillate back to the center and pass it, then oscillate back to the center,...etc. forever
Other than the fact that this has nothing to do with the topic...

It would only work if drilled through the polar axis. Anwhere else and your sack of bananas will intersect the wall as the Earth turns.

And then there's the matter of keeping the hole in vacuum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K