# Is gravitational prospecting pseudoscience?

• I
• avicenna
In summary, JTBell says that gravitational prospecting is pseudoscience because the gravitational field and magnitude at any local postition is a constant and cannot tell anything about variation of mass distribution beneath a site. He also points out that classical mechanics is not applicable to gravitational prospecting. However, according to gravity theory, the gravitational field and magnitude just above the surface of the Earth would be always pointing directly towards the center of mass of the earth. This assumption assumes that the Earth's mass distribution is exactly spherically symmetric. This is true only as an approximation, when one wants to calculate g to only a few digits of precision. JTBell then goes on to say that gravitational prospecting is not real science because it is based
avicenna
Is gravitational prospecting pseudoscience?

From the literature, it says that we can know what is beneath a site (say for prospecting for oil. metals, etc) from measuring the local "g" field/acceleration at various locations. Together with other information, we can know the mass distributions at the site below.

But according to gravity theory, the gravitational field and magnitude just above the surface of the Earth would be always pointing directly towards the center of mass of the earth. We can assume that this CM relative to a location is a constant in general if we take into account purely gravitational forces between an object and the earth.

Small g is a constant at a location depending on mass m of an object, mass M of the Earth and the distance r from the Earth's CM. It is a constant in general.

avicenna said:
But according to gravity theory, the gravitational field and magnitude just above the surface of the Earth would be always pointing directly towards the center of mass of the earth.
This assumes that the Earth's mass distribution is exactly spherically symmetric. This is true only as an approximation, when one wants to calculate g to only a few digits of precision.

The next level of approximation takes into account that the Earth is not a sphere, but an oblate (flattened) ellipsoid, because of its rotation.

Then there are variations due to the irregular distribution of mass. You can see the results of measurements in the figure at the top of the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

This shows only variations over large regions. Some more discussion of these variations is at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_geodesy

Last edited:
berkeman, russ_watters and davenn
jtbell said:
This assumes that the Earth's mass distribution is exactly spherically symmetric. This is true only as an approximation, when one wants to calculate g to only a few digits of precision.
It is not so; spherical mass symmetry is not needed! It is a rigorous classical field theory principle and the application of the inverse square law of gravitation.

Starting from point mass particles, we assume gravitational forces obey the superposition principle. In chapter 1 of "Classical Mechanics, Hertbert Goldstein", you will find that the action of the Earth's body on an object m above the Earth is equivalent to the action of a mass M of the Earth acting as a particle at the center of mass of the earth. This CM of the Earth relative to any location - say New York city - is generally a constant (ignoring other non-gravitational factors). The "g" field and magnitude at any local postition is a constant and cannot tell anything about variation of mass distribution beneath a site.

Gravitational prospecting is clearly outside of classical mechanics. You have to reject the principle above if you accept gravitational prospecting.

avicenna said:
Gravitational prospecting is clearly outside of classical mechanics. You have to reject the principle above if you accept gravitational prospecting.

I see. So you weren't really asking a question.

Do you think you could find a mountain with a gravimeter?

russ_watters
avicenna said:
It is not so ...
Interesting. You join a physics forum filled with people who know what they are talking about and immediately tell a mentor that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Kind of makes one think you are not actually here to learn.

russ_watters, weirdoguy and davenn
avicenna said:
The "g" field and magnitude at any local postition is a constant and cannot tell anything about variation of mass distribution beneath a site.

this of course is garbage and if you believe that then you have some serious misunderstandings

avicenna said:
But according to gravity theory, the gravitational field and magnitude just above the surface of the Earth would be always pointing directly towards the center of mass of the earth
Imagine a dumbell shaped planet. Its CM would be half way along the 'bar'. Take a point on the bar, nearer one ball then the other. Which direction would you expect the g force to act?
During the Moon Landings, were the astronauts attracted to the CM of the earth/ Moon or to the Moon's surface?
The CM is the centre of attraction only for objects a long way (infinity) from the body you are considering.

sophiecentaur said:
Imagine a dumbell shaped planet. Its CM would be half way along the 'bar'. Take a point on the bar, nearer one ball then the other. Which direction would you expect the g force to act?
During the Moon Landings, were the astronauts attracted to the CM of the earth/ Moon or to the Moon's surface?
The CM is the centre of attraction only for objects a long way (infinity) from the body you are considering.
Thanks. I actually found where I got things wrong. I did not read the links given by jtbell as I read some other explanations elsewhere and could not understand how a gravimeter could work.

I got the answer only after I read some other explanations about the force of an extended body on a point mass. Someone mentioned Newton proved that for a uniform spherical mass, it could be treated as a point mass at the center. In general, for an extended body, we have to do an integration and the g-field may not pass through the CM of the large body.

For the moon landing, I think the g-field still points approximately toward the center of the moon.

jbriggs444 and berkeman
CoM isn't necessarily CoW.

For example : if a patch of sand on a beach contained a large number of mountain ranges compressed into black holes, the weight of your foot would perceptibly increase if you stepped on it (but a bird flying 500m overhead wouldn't notice).

And, as a side order, it's reasonable to assume that, in opposition to treating the Earth as a point source, as one moved closer to the center, net g would decrease.

## 1. What is gravitational prospecting?

Gravitational prospecting is a geophysical method used to locate underground mineral deposits or oil and gas reserves by measuring variations in the Earth's gravitational field.

## 2. Is gravitational prospecting a reliable method?

Yes, gravitational prospecting has been used successfully for many years by geologists and geophysicists to locate valuable resources underground. It is a widely accepted and trusted method in the scientific community.

## 3. How does gravitational prospecting work?

Gravitational prospecting involves measuring tiny variations in the Earth's gravitational field caused by differences in the density of subsurface materials. These variations can indicate the presence of mineral deposits or hydrocarbon reservoirs.

## 4. Is gravitational prospecting considered pseudoscience?

No, gravitational prospecting is a legitimate scientific method that is based on the principles of physics and geology. It is not considered pseudoscience, which refers to claims that are not supported by evidence or scientific reasoning.

## 5. What are the limitations of gravitational prospecting?

Gravitational prospecting may not be as effective in areas with complex geological structures, such as mountainous regions. It also has a limited depth of penetration, so it may not be able to detect resources that are too deep underground. Other geophysical methods may be more suitable in these cases.

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
524
Replies
14
Views
21K
Replies
11
Views
683
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
808