Life's contribution to Earth's weight and gravity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NWH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Weight
AI Thread Summary
Life on Earth does not significantly change the planet's overall weight, as all mass originates from Earth itself. While living organisms grow and gain weight, this does not alter Earth's mass, which remains stable regardless of life. However, human activities, such as spacecraft launching into space, can slightly reduce Earth's weight. Additionally, the concentration of life in urban areas may affect the Earth's gravitational profile due to shifts in mass distribution. Overall, the impact of life on Earth's weight and gravity is minimal and largely offset by other factors.
NWH
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
This is a bit of an odd question, but I was wondering. What kind of contribution would life have made to Earth's overall weight? Also, would a decayed body still weigh the same weight if all of the forms of decay were in a controlled enviroment? I started pondering this the other day when thinking about life growing up, constantly gaining weight as we grow. I also wondered what kind of implications it might have had on Earth and it's gravitational forces over the years.

It's kind of a stupid question, but thanks for any input...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All of the mass of a person comes from the earth, so there is no change in mass due to living things.
 
NWH said:
This is a bit of an odd question, but I was wondering. What kind of contribution would life have made to Earth's overall weight? Also, would a decayed body still weigh the same weight if all of the forms of decay were in a controlled enviroment? I started pondering this the other day when thinking about life growing up, constantly gaining weight as we grow. I also wondered what kind of implications it might have had on Earth and it's gravitational forces over the years.

It's kind of a stupid question, but thanks for any input...

Contrarily, life makes Earth lighter a little bit because of some spacecraft s plunging into the universe. Except from that, the weight of the Earth is stable no mater life does exitst or not.
 
pixel01 said:
Contrarily, life makes Earth lighter a little bit because of some spacecraft s plunging into the universe. Except from that, the weight of the Earth is stable no mater life does exitst or not.

Offset in turn just a tad by scraps from the Moon or comets that we've brought back. (As long as we are considering small effects.) :wink:
 
Well, hold up.

People - and animals - tend to concentrate in cities. For instance, there are many more people living in New York, NY than in Middleofnowheretonshire, PA. Also, cities weigh more than farms naturally, as there are more buildings, more cars, etc.

If the distribution of cities isn't symmetric enough, it's entirely possibly that life alters the Earth's gravitational profile in a way which is less random than it would be if non-biological processes were the only motors of change.

As a proof of concept, say that 1% of the Earth's mass makes up what humans can play around with. Say we move all this to one spot on the Earth's surface. Then we will have slightly shifted the center of mass of the Earth.
 
pixel01 said:
Contrarily, life makes Earth lighter a little bit because of some spacecraft s plunging into the universe.

And because of the electromagnetic radiation that we're constantly producing, e.g. those "Leave It to Beaver" TV programs that are now about fifty light-years away from us.

Now, there's a "Fermi problem" for you! Estimate the mass equivalent that was radiated away during one such half-hour program. :rolleyes:
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top