Is World Jump Day Real? A Closer Look at This Controversial Event

  • Thread starter Thread starter TuRbOxChAz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jump
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of "World Jump Day" and whether a collective jump by the global population could affect Earth's orbit. Participants argue that, according to the law of conservation of energy, such an event would not significantly alter Earth's orbit. They clarify that while earthquakes can slightly change Earth's rotation, they do not affect its orbit. The conversation delves into the mechanics of how mass redistribution during seismic events can influence rotation, but emphasizes that any changes are minimal and not comparable to the hypothetical jumping scenario. Some participants humorously suggest alternative ideas, like a "World Suck/Blow Day," while others critique the feasibility of synchronizing a global jump. The thread also touches on the physics of energy conversion, particularly in relation to nuclear explosions, and how these might have a negligible effect on Earth's orbit compared to the mass of the planet itself. Overall, the consensus is that while the idea is entertaining, it lacks scientific grounding.
TuRbOxChAz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I would really like to know if this is really true.

Please also read by the [more info]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no

tomatooooo[/color]
 
Wow that's one of the craziest things I've ever seen.

Even if everybody in the world jumped up and down at the same time the orbit wouldn't change.
 
Conservation of energy says nothing at all happens to the Earth's orbit when you jump.
 
Of course nothing would change in the larger sense.

But it would be interesting to see if it showed up on seismic readings...
 
Thats crazy. These people can't be serious.
 
Well I predict that if you react you will get an e-mail on 31 March stating that tomorrow is world jumping day.

That would be great.
 
Simple Conservation of Energy

Conservation of energy is the only issue here. Observing the Earth (and all of its inhabitants and atmoshphere) as one mass, the only way to change the orbit is if it is acted upon by an outside force. So either external gravity/impact/force could change the orbit, or the Earth mass would change by expelling matter. If all of these people would jump off into space, never to return, then that would change the orbit minutely. If so many people believe this, perhaps that's the best option... :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
Okay... bare with me. When there is a massive earthquake (such as the tsunami in December of '04) It can alter the Earth's orbit slightly... so why not everyone jumping up and down at exactly the same time? You really think that would cause NO rumbling at all? 6.5 billion people is a lot of weight. This gets me to questioning "what exactly an earthquake is and how it is caused?"... and why it can change the orbit of the Earth. Someone talk with me :)
 
  • #11
You misread/hear: earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation, not it's orbit.
 
  • #12
JMAC said:
If all of these people would jump off into space, never to return, then that would change the orbit minutely. If so many people believe this, perhaps that's the best option... :rolleyes:
Yeah, but that would be the end of basketball as we know it... :biggrin:
 
  • #13
Serpo said:
This gets me to questioning "what exactly an earthquake is and how it is caused

An Earthquake is the sudden release of pressure along a crack known as a fault. Movement along these faults is not steady due to frictional force. When stress builds up enough, it will overcome friction and a section of rock will slide over another up to a few metres in distance. This releases massive shockwaves which causes shaking at the surface.
 
  • #14
Rotation changed, not the orbit. WORLD SUCK/BLOW DAY

Russ is right, the rotation of the Earth is affected by these quakes. We can control the rotation of the earth, but not the orbital path, because the Earth mass as a whole is still traveling in the same path even though the rotational path changes.

WORLD SUCK/BLOW DAY (This one would actually work.)
Needed: 2,500,000,000 Registered: 1

Everyone would face west then SUCK in a huge breath of air.
Turn east and BLOW it out hard.

This will slow the Earth's rotation, extend the length of an Earth day.

(And according to the World Jump Day experts, bring back Elvis and the Easter Bunny):biggrin:
 
  • #15
JMAC said:
=
Needed: 2,500,000,000

I have no doubts that 2.5 billion people on this Earth really suck.
 
  • #16
Thanks guys. I guess what I was asking for was a bit deeper, and a bit of a misunderstanding about orbit and rotation. That's funny pengwuino :P
 
  • #17
The situation might be more complex than a simple analysis with conservation of momentum.

Imagine two containers in free space connected by a spring.
One consists of viscoelastic tissue like human tissue and the other consists of cold tar, like Earth's magma. Which direction would the system shift if it were to oscillate? That's the real question here.
 
  • #18
Are you meaning to imply that an oscillation can cause a net displacement of the center of gravity of the system by dampening one side?

No.
 
  • #19
Yes. I meant to imply that.

How come it doesn't work?
 
  • #21
One really interesting thing though. These guys are selling stickers and t-shirts (which look quite cool i must add) to make a quick buck out of there non-sensical jumping er, thingy! I take my hat off to them for there creative business sense.

BTW, how many people will actually jump at that exact time. It is an impossibilty, it'll NEVER happen and you can all be happy that the Earth's rotation, orbit or the Earth's secret plan to go on a low-carb diet in the year 30156 will all be unchanged.
 
  • #22
people believe things when it looks official. See Stanely Milgram. :)
 
  • #23
But let's say many nuclear bombs explode in a specific place. Doesn't that change the Earth's orbit?
 
  • #24
In The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy there is a story about a planet which would be destroyed by a cataclysm. So the inhabitants build three large ships to transport the whole population to another suitable planet.
In ship A would go all the brilliant leaders, the scientists, the great artists. In ship C would go all the people who did the actual work, who made things and did things and in ship B everybody else.
The B ship was the first and only one to take off. The elite of the planet had made up the story of the cataclysm to get rid of the undesirables.
If someday we have the technology for that, we can send people who believe in such nonsense as The Earth Jumping Day to leave the planet.
 
  • #25
SGT said:
In The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy there is a story about a planet which would be destroyed by a cataclysm. So the inhabitants build three large ships to transport the whole population to another suitable planet.
In ship A would go all the brilliant leaders, the scientists, the great artists. In ship C would go all the people who did the actual work, who made things and did things and in ship B everybody else.
The B ship was the first and only one to take off. The elite of the planet had made up the story of the cataclysm to get rid of the undesirables.
If someday we have the technology for that, we can send people who believe in such nonsense as The Earth Jumping Day to leave the planet.
I want to help make the list of who goes on ship B. :devil:
 
  • #26
vabamyyr said:
But let's say many nuclear bombs explode in a specific place. Doesn't that change the Earth's orbit?
Yes, it would. If you're looking to compare that with "World Jump Day", the difference is that the energy of the bombs starts as nuclear energy, not mechanical energy. So there is a net input of mechanical energy.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Yes, it would. If you're looking to compare that with "World Jump Day", the difference is that the energy of the bombs starts as nuclear energy, not mechanical energy. So there is a net input of mechanical energy.
Are you sure about this? :rolleyes:
 
  • #28
vabamyyr said:
But let's say many nuclear bombs explode in a specific place. Doesn't that change the Earth's orbit?
Not by much. The Earth's orbit is determined by the total mass-energy (also their momentums and even their shapes!) of the earth, Sun, and other objects in the solar system to a lesser extent. A nuclear bomb converts a little bit of nuclear mass, m, into a lot (E=mc^2) of thermal kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation, E. That part of the electromagnetic radiation which leaves the Earth for good does reduce the mass-energy of the Earth a little bit, and therefore it does change the Earth's orbit a little bit (so does shining a flashlight into space :cool:), but AFAIK the force of the explosion per se can not change the Earth's orbit unless it propels some object(s) to escape velocity and they actually leave the Earth so that they aren't part of it anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
My professor of physics once said that a better idea would be world 'walke east' day. If everyone in the world walked east at once, there would be a change in the rotational velocity of the Earth, due to us pushing the ground as we walk.

Unfortuntaely, I don't know if the Earth spins east or west, so I don't know if this would speed us up, or slow us down. I imagine once we all stopped, we would return (or take back) the momentum from the Earth and it would continue with its original speed. But did we just cheat the day some frame of time?
 
  • #30
Pythagorean said:
My professor of physics once said that a better idea would be world 'walke east' day. If everyone in the world walked east at once, there would be a change in the rotational velocity of the Earth, due to us pushing the ground as we walk.
Unfortuntaely, I don't know if the Earth spins east or west, so I don't know if this would speed us up, or slow us down.
The Sun generally appears to rise in the east, and to set in the west. So, which way is the Earth spinning?

I imagine once we all stopped, we would return (or take back) the momentum from the Earth and it would continue with its original speed.
Yes.

But did we just cheat the day some frame of time?
Yes, but only if you don't count yourself as a part of the earth. Also, if you ever walk back to the place where you started then you would completely un-do the effect (unless you go the long way round).
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Aether said:
The Sun generally appears to rise in the east, and to set in the west. So, which way is the Earth spinning?
Where the heck do you live? In Alaska in the summertime, the Sun rises in the North and sets in the North. So which way is the Earth spinning? :smile:

Hmmm, I guess your reply isn't any sillier than the original comment. When I was in Alaska for a year, I did find it odd that when I wanted to look homeward towards Omaha, I had to look due East. Directions are kind of funny when you're so close to the poles.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
BobG said:
Aether said:
The Sun generally appears to rise in the east, and to set in the west. So, which way is the Earth spinning?
Where the heck do you live? In Alaska in the summertime, the Sun rises in the North and sets in the North. So which way is the Earth spinning? :smile:
Ha ha, I said "generally". :biggrin:
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
You misread/hear: earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation, not it's orbit.
The total momentum of the Earth cannot be changed by internal forces. If the rotation of the planet is altered, so is its angular momentum. In order to conserve the total momentum, the orbital speed must be altered.
Something similar has being happening in the last 4 billion years or so. The Moon was closer to Earth and both bodies had a faster rotation.
Friction caused by tides has slowed both rotations in such a way that now the Moon always faces the Earth with the same side. The conservation of momentum of the Earth-Moon system has made the satellite move farther from the planet.
 
  • #34
SGT said:
russ_watters said:
You misread/hear: earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation, not it's orbit.
If the rotation of the planet is altered, so is its angular momentum. In order to conserve the total momentum, the orbital speed must be altered.
Incorrect. Angular momentum is a product of rotational inertia and angular speed. The rotational inertia of the Earth decreased significantly as a result of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in Dec. 2004 for example. To conserve angular momentum, the angular speed of the Earth's rotation had to increase proportionally.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Aether said:
Are you sure about this? :rolleyes:
Am I sure about what? Where the energy comes from or what the effect is?

If you are simply saying the effect will be small, I never said it wouldn't be. But it won't be zero, unlike the net effect of the World Jump Day scenario.
nuclear bomb converts a little bit of nuclear mass, , into a lot () of thermal kinetic energy and electromagnetic radiation, . That part of the electromagnetic radiation which leaves the Earth for good does reduce the mass-energy of the Earth a little bit, and therefore it does change the Earth's orbit a little bit (so does shining a flashlight into space ), but AFAIK the force of the explosion per se can not change the Earth's orbit unless it propels some object(s) to escape velocity and they actually leave the Earth so that they aren't part of it anymore.
A flashlight still has a nonzero effect (unlike the World Jump Day effect which is exactly zero), but the image that puts in ones head is a little misleading. Radiation pressure is significant enough that a there have been number of different means of harnessing it proposed to propel spacecraft .
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Aether said:
Incorrect. Angular momentum is a product of rotational inertia and angular speed. The rotational inertia of the Earth decreased significantly as a result of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in Dec. 2004 for example. To conserve angular momentum, the angular speed of the Earth's rotation had to increase proportionally.
I'm not sure if it was a factor for the earthquake or not, but the inertia doesn't even have to change. The rotation of the Earth causes friction, at the very least in the atmosphere and oceans, (not sure about inside the planet, but probably there too), which also slows the Earth's rotation by a measurable amount.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
russ_watters said:
Yes, it would. If you're looking to compare that with "World Jump Day", the difference is that the energy of the bombs starts as nuclear energy, not mechanical energy. So there is a net input of mechanical energy.
Aether said:
Are you sure about this?
russ_watters said:
Am I sure about what? Where the energy comes from or what the effect is?
Are you sure that "...the difference is that the energy of the bombs starts as nuclear energy, not mechanical energy. So there is a net input of mechanical energy". You seem to be implying here that momentum is not conserved in a nuclear reaction. How might "a net input of mechanical energy" from a nuclear reaction influence the orbit of the Earth "unless it propels some object(s) to escape velocity and they actually leave the Earth so that they aren't part of it anymore"?
russ_watters said:
Aether said:
Incorrect. Angular momentum is a product of rotational inertia and angular speed. The rotational inertia of the Earth decreased significantly as a result of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in Dec. 2004 for example. To conserve angular momentum, the angular speed of the Earth's rotation had to increase proportionally.
I'm not sure if it was a factor for the earthquake or not, but the inertia doesn't even have to change. The rotation of the Earth causes friction, at the very least in the atmosphere and oceans, (not sure about inside the planet, but probably there too), which also slows the Earth's rotation by a measurable amount.
I was agreeing with you there, and disagreeing with SGT.

[add]However, if rotational inertia is constant but angular speed is not, then angular momentum is not conserved and I would agree with SGT that some orbital mechanical process is likely at work.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Aether said:
The Sun generally appears to rise in the east, and to set in the west. So, which way is the Earth spinning?

Well, I live in Alaska where the sun just does circles over your head in the summer (practically), but given that description, the Earth rotates towards the East.
 
  • #39
Aether said:
Are you sure that "...the difference is that the energy of the bombs starts as nuclear energy, not mechanical energy. So there is a net input of mechanical energy". You seem to be implying here that momentum is not conserved in a nuclear reaction.
Total energy is conserved, mechanical energy is not because nuclear energy is converted to mechanical energy. The same applies to radiated electromagnetic energy.
How might "a net input of mechanical energy" from a nuclear reaction influence the orbit of the Earth "unless it propels some object(s) to escape velocity and they actually leave the Earth so that they aren't part of it anymore"?
Yes, matter would have to be thrown away from the earth. I'm not sure how much actually is for a nuclear bomb - certainly it would depend on how big it is. Regardless, the radiated EM energy that escapes into space is probably a pretty significant fraction of the total energy.
I was agreeing with you there, and disagreeing with SGT.
I was just expanding on it.
 
  • #40
Pythagorean said:
Well, I live in Alaska where the sun just does circles over your head in the summer (practically), but given that description, the Earth rotates towards the East.
That's right, but you don't have to rely on that description. As the Sun appears to circle overhead, does it go clockwise or counterclockwise? You could predict the direction based on your earlier conclusion that "the Earth rotates toward the East", and then observe directly which way it goes.
 
  • #41
Aether said:
Incorrect. Angular momentum is a product of rotational inertia and angular speed. The rotational inertia of the Earth decreased significantly as a result of the earthquake that caused the tsunami in Dec. 2004 for example. To conserve angular momentum, the angular speed of the Earth's rotation had to increase proportionally.
How did the earthquake decrease Earth's rotational inertia? Was matter lost or did the radius of the planet increase?
 
  • #42
SGT said:
How did the earthquake decrease Earth's rotational inertia? Was matter lost or did the radius of the planet increase?
By tectonic subduction along a tectonic plate boundary. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/tsunami/earthquake.htm

2.5 Length of Day Variations said:
While it might seem fairly incredible the length of the day is changing all the time -- not by an amount that anyone would notice, but by amoints that are easy to detect instrumentally. The changes are only a few milliseconds (a millisecond is one thousandth of a second) but they are very easy to measure. The record below shows that there are very regular variations and also very irregular variations. All of the changes must in some way be caused by the re-distribution of mass over the surface and with in the Earth. Seasonal changes (curve d) are caused by the change in ice volume and relative amounts of water in the atmosphere from summer to winter. Longer period changes and shorter period changes (curves c and e respectively) are more difficult to explain. Some are caused by the phase of the El Nino -- the Earth rotates differently in an El Nino year than in a La Nina year because these phenomena change the distribution of wet and dry parts of the world. Even longer period changes must be caused by processes in the deep Earth that move masses around such as subduction of large slabs of lithosphere. The cause of many of the longer period signals is not well understood.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/users/jcm/Topic2/Topic2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Aether said:
That's right, but you don't have to rely on that description. As the Sun appears to circle overhead, does it go clockwise or counterclockwise? You could predict the direction based on your earlier conclusion that "the Earth rotates toward the East", and then observe directly which way it goes.

True enough, but it's still not something that I could tell you without turning 'obsrevation mode' on for a day. I've actually made quite the habit of not looking at the sun (probably because it's there all day and night.) and especially not several times a day to check its position.
 
  • #44
Pythagorean said:
True enough, but it's still not something that I could tell you without turning 'obsrevation mode' on for a day. I've actually made quite the habit of not looking at the sun (probably because it's there all day and night.) and especially not several times a day to check its position.
Yes, I was hoping that you would turn on 'observation mode' and then report back what you saw. :smile:
 
  • #45
Aether said:
Yes, I was hoping that you would turn on 'observation mode' and then report back what you saw. :smile:

I could do that. Today: clouds.

I'll make a note of it though for when it's clear out.
 

Similar threads

Are there any modern day futurism art strips?
Replies
4
Views
898
Where is the usual sensationalism? (Riemann Hypothesis)
Replies
10
Views
2K
Are true geniuses extinct?
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
What are the odds?
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
B Understanding Newton Force: Real World Examples
Replies
6
Views
6K
Chemical Forums down, or how I learned what slowloris is
Replies
8
Views
1K
The Imprecision of Modeling Real World Events
Replies
1
Views
1K
What is the reality of being a physicist?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Misc. DIY 'ECG' Machine: Testing Feasibility of Wave Transference
Replies
31
Views
4K
Question about observation and the sense theory
Replies
16
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top