Sun Gravity Gradient Too Low To Flex Crust?

[common_sense_seeker]

I accept that the Sun has a significant gravitational pull to influence the ocean tides. But the Earth´s equatorial radius of 6378 km is so small compared to the Sun´s average distance of 1496x10-to-power-8 km. Relative to the center of the Earth, the amount of mass reduces exponentially as the surface of the near side to the Sun is reached, further diminishing the effect of the gravity gradient (compared to the shape of the Earth being a cube, for example). Early calculations show that the stiffness of the lithosphere is strong enough to counteract the effect. This suggests that an additional influence is at work to create the observed flexure of the crust. Can anyone prove me wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

[D H]

What nonsense are you trying to push this time around? In particular, this:
The amount of mass reduces exponentially as the surface of the near side to the Sun is reached.

Start with a false premise and you get a false conclusion, or "garbage in, garbage out". The cited sentence doesn't even parse well, and even granting that, there is no "exponential decrease in mass". Try again, and post some link.

[common_sense_seeker]

Compared to a cube which keeps the same side facing the Sun, a spherical planet will experience a lower effect due to the gravity gradient.

[D H]

Could you explain what you are confused about, what you think is wrong with models of tidal forces?

This makes no sense: "Relative to the center of the Earth, the amount of mass reduces exponentially as the surface of the near side to the Sun is reached"

Nor does this: "Early calculations show that the stiffness of the lithosphere is strong enough to counteract the effect."
"Early calculations" by whom -- by you? If so, show them. "counteract the effect" -- Exactly what effect are you talking about?

Try again, but this time explain what you are trying to get at.

[Steve100]

Could you explain what you are confused about, what you think is wrong with models of tidal forces?

This makes no sense: "Relative to the center of the Earth, the amount of mass reduces exponentially as the surface of the near side to the Sun is reached"

Nor does this: "Early calculations show that the stiffness of the lithosphere is strong enough to counteract the effect."
"Early calculations" by whom -- by you? If so, show them. "counteract the effect" -- Exactly what effect are you talking about?

Try again, but this time explain what you are trying to get at.

I have a stone you can try and squeeze the blood from. It would probably be easier.

[common_sense_seeker]

funny.

[common_sense_seeker]

Okay, I admit that it´s because I believe that there is a problem with the current standard model of gravity. It´s quite subtle. Unless you think that there is a possibility that Sir Isaac Newton has made a fundamental underestimate of the complexity of matter, nothing will make any sense. I am writing a paper due for submission to Nexus magazine. It´s crazy, but makes a lot of sense to the curious.

[OilIsMastery]

I agree that tidal forces are not understood.

This is especially true in the case of Retardipedia and the absolute and utter unmitigated ignorance demonstrated on that entry is yet another fine example.

[Saxion]

Okay, I admit that it´s because I believe that there is a problem with the current standard model of gravity. It´s quite subtle. Unless you think that there is a possibility that Sir Isaac Newton has made a fundamental underestimate of the complexity of matter, nothing will make any sense. I am writing a paper due for submission to Nexus magazine. It´s crazy, but makes a lot of sense to the curious.

People like you, annoy me, because its quite obvious you are not an astrophysicist as you claim. I bet your not even a scientist, because no one, not a single scientist in their right mind would have come out with some of the things you have claimed -- the best yet is believing that dark matter inhabited the center of the Earth -- totally neglecting all the reasons why that particular theory would be bunk, you carried on believing it was ''something of mainstream,''' when clearly it wasn't.

You are only lying to yourself. Your... quite laughable and ridiculous theories will not rub off on people around here. I've seen quite a few strange theories here, but yours has annoyed me the most, displaying total crank-pottery.

[common_sense_seeker]

I´ll take that as a compliment. My theory is that matter at the center of the Earth has a lower entropy, so producing a stronger force of gravitational attraction. This would increase the effect of a gravity gradient and tidal heating. There is currently a lot of work in this area with respect to the high volcanic activity on Io. At least one professional body has declared that their calculations cannot account for the heat produced from Io´s interior. It has to be assumed that it´s orbit was different previously and that the high internal heat is a residue from this. BTW I´m not saying that I´m an astrophysicist, but I was a scientist and do have a degree in Astronomy with Computing.

[Saxion]

I´ll take that as a compliment. My theory is that matter at the center of the Earth has a lower entropy, so producing a stronger force of gravitational attraction. This would increase the effect of a gravity gradient and tidal heating. There is currently a lot of work in this area with respect to the high volcanic activity on Io. At least one professional body has declared that their calculations cannot account for the heat produced from Io´s interior. It has to be assumed that it´s orbit was different previously and that the high internal heat is a residue from this. BTW I´m not saying that I´m an astrophysicist, but I was a scientist and do have a degree in Astronomy with Computing.

Right, so you have studied planetary motion. That's it.

You haven't studied the big bang nucleosynthesis, you haven't studied mathematical descriptions of the sun, element contents on other planets... blah blah blah. The part and parcel of actually being a cosmological scientist?

This is the whole point. You cannot sit there and proclaim a theory to be mainstream, unless A) it truely is accepted by maintream, and B) you have considered that that particular theory is sound. All your theories have shown neglect of truth, failure in whole parts, and general terrible grose mistakes in the analysis of your theories lead one to believe you have no real interest in science at all.

Go to college, go to university and study to be an astrophysicist, if you really are so hyped about it.

[common_sense_seeker]

This is the whole point. You cannot sit there and proclaim a theory to be mainstream, unless A) it truely is accepted by maintream, and B) you have considered that .

I´m not saying my ideas are mainstream. Just the opposite. My main argument is that matter has entropy (highly significant in chemistry), which seems to have been disregarded w.r.t gravity. It could be that gravity is a strong force, it´s just that baryonic matter has a high entropy and so the overall effect is a low gravitational field. It could be that gravity is the Strong force. My thinking is not that radical.

[D H]

You have no ideas. You have not written a single equation. Doing physics without math is pretending; it's a form of self-abuse.

Entropy is not a force. It doesn't affect mass. Gravity is not the strong force.

[common_sense_seeker]

You have no ideas. You have not written a single equation. Doing physics without math is pretending; it's a form of self-abuse.

Entropy is not a force. It doesn't affect mass. Gravity is not the strong force.


Your responses are poor and barely worth commenting on. BTW I have learnt that the number of posts by a site member is not proportional to their scientific ability. Do I have to write an equation for that?

[Steve100]

Your responses are poor and barely worth commenting on. BTW I have learnt that the number of posts by a site member is not proportional to their scientific ability. Do I have to write an equation for that?

Do you think you could?

[common_sense_seeker]

Do you think you could?


On paper of course, but I could do with a tip about how to write mathematical notation in these posts.

[Steve100]

Use TeX

"tex" goes in the function brackets.

[ tex]dfgdfghdhdfhg[ /tex]

[common_sense_seeker]

Thanks for that. I´m still working on the problem from the bottom up, assuming nothing. So it still may take a while.

[common_sense_seeker]

I have found some data and calculated that the amount of pressure needed to deform the crust by 0.2m due to the load of an ice sheet is 727kg/m/m. Trying to calculate the internal pressure due to the Sun is a lot trickier. I´m assuming that the pressure will be a lot less than the above figure, which would then lend credibility to my theory. I´m still working on the maths.

[Montec]

Hello common_sense_seeker

If I may suggest a line of research that you may have overlooked. It involves nothing more than calculating centrifugal forces along a rod 8,000 miles long with an orbital radius of 93 million miles and a orbital speed of 18 1/2 miles/sec. You can then change the rod's orientation with respect to the orbital radius and see what this does to the forces on the rod. The orbital radius is of course measured to the rod's center of gravity. Be aware that this is just the start of a complicated mathematical function.

:)

[common_sense_seeker]

Hi Montec, I´m disregarding rotational forces for the moment. A straight forward calculation of the gravity gradient pressure is a challenge right now. No doubt they will be considered later on.

[common_sense_seeker]

Hello common_sense_seeker

If I may suggest a line of research that you may have overlooked. It involves nothing more than calculating centrifugal forces along a rod 8,000 miles long with an orbital radius of 93 million miles and a orbital speed of 18 1/2 miles/sec. You can then change the rod's orientation with respect to the orbital radius and see what this does to the forces on the rod. The orbital radius is of course measured to the rod's center of gravity. Be aware that this is just the start of a complicated mathematical function.

:)


I'm now much more interested in calculating the force which creates the Earth's equatorial bulge. This would then take into account the resistive viscoelastic effect of the mantle. I'm starting to like the maths. Great TV programme on BBC4 about History of Maths last night.

[Saxion]

I´m still working on the maths

Oh i can't wait.

I'm sitting here with anticipation.

[MetaKron]

I'm now much more interested in calculating the force which creates the Earth's equatorial bulge. This would then take into account the resistive viscoelastic effect of the mantle. I'm starting to like the maths. Great TV programme on BBC4 about History of Maths last night.

The equatorial bulge has seniority. It has had many years to settle in. I think that you will find that even if the Earth were pure water, the equatorial bulge would be the same.

[D H]

I'm now much more interested in calculating the force which creates the Earth's equatorial bulge.
In that case you are, for the most part, barking up the wrong tree in looking at the earth tides induced by the Sun. The equatorial bulge is caused almost exclusively by the Earth's sidereal rotation about its axis. There is a small contribution from permanent Earth tides, but these are very, very small; much smaller than the Earth tides, which are in turn much smaller than the rotationally-induced oblateness. The rotationally-induced bulge is 42.72 kilometers if you look at the difference between the equatorial diameter a diameter that passes through the poles, or 21.3 kilometers if you look at the difference between the equatorial and polar radii. This is about 2.5 orders of magnitude smaller than the mean earth radius of 6370 kilometers. The earth tides are another 4-5 orders of magnitude smaller than the equatorial bulge.

In short, if you are trying to prove that the Sun is not responsible for the equatorial bulge, we already know that. You will not have proven a thing.

[spidergoat]

Nothing is stiff enough to resist flexing.

[draqon]

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter17/Images/eq17-12.gif

the following equation shows relationship between the Suns's mass and Earth mass and the change of forces from the change of distance between these masses.

taken from this site: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter17/chapter17_04.htm

Furthermore let us understand that what the O.P is asking is to investigate a mechanical property of a material of crust to be deformed by these tidal force differences.

From engineering aspect, every material is deformed if the force is there, so the crust is flexed for sure, question is how much is it deformed to make any accountable change be noticeable.

[draqon]

Nothing is stiff enough to resist flexing.

true.

[D H]

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter17/Images/eq17-12.gif

the following equation shows relationship between the Suns's mass and Earth mass and the change of forces from the change of distance between these masses.

taken from this site: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter17/chapter17_04.htm
Not quite right, and not right at all.

The not quite right part: The relevant expression is

H = -\m\frac 1 r\,\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi} = \frac {2G}r \sin 2\phi
where
G = \frac 3 4 \gamma M \frac {r^2}{R^3}

Note that the gamma rather than the G in the above expression is not the universal gravitational coefficient. G is a Sun/Moon specific parameter in the horizontal force term H.

The not right at all part: The cited link is about ocean tides. The OP is attempting to argue against earth tides, not ocean tides. The entire Earth indeed does flex due to the tidal forces exerted by the Moon and Sun, and by as much as a half a meter or so.

[common_sense_seeker]

computer problem.

[common_sense_seeker]

Please ignore these posts.

[common_sense_seeker]

Can you delete a duplicated post entirely?

[common_sense_seeker]

Should be able to.

[common_sense_seeker]

The entire Earth indeed does flex due to the tidal forces exerted by the Moon and Sun, and by as much as a half a meter or so.

This I can understand and agree with. My simple mind model has these tidal forces resisted by the viscoelasticity of the mantle & outer core, and also by the stiffness of the lithosphere. In order for my theory of an inner core having a higher force of gravitational attraction to be viable, all that is needed is for the viscoelastic force to be an underestimate. This is because the exotic inner core would exaggerate the effect of a gravity gradient, so giving a greater overall tidal force.

The equatorial bulge due to rotation is permanent, and so isn't a driving factor in the Earth's ocean tides. The bulges due to the gravity gradients travel over this equatorial bulge and it is this which gives rise to the ocean tides. I acknowledge the small complimentary effects due to oblateness and rotation as discussed by D.H.

My interest in the calculation of the equatorial bulge due to rotation, is to understand the modelling of the inner viscoelasticity estimates. I suspect that they have been inferred from the observed flexure of the lithosphere .i.e due to the assumption of Newton's law of universal gravitation and to 'fit the facts'. Or perhaps the inner Earth temperatures are overestimates, which would lead to an underestimate of the resistive viscoelastic force?

[Steve100]

Can you delete a duplicated post entirely?

Click edit - Delete post.

[common_sense_seeker]

I still can't do it! I can't find the 'delete' option, only edit mode.

[common_sense_seeker]

This I can understand and agree with. My simple mind model has these tidal forces resisted by the viscoelasticity of the mantle & outer core, and also by the stiffness of the lithosphere. In order for my theory of an inner core having a higher force of gravitational attraction to be viable, all that is needed is for the viscoelastic force to be an underestimate. This is because the exotic inner core would exaggerate the effect of a gravity gradient, so giving a greater overall tidal force.

The equatorial bulge due to rotation is permanent, and so isn't a driving factor in the Earth's ocean tides. The bulges due to the gravity gradients travel over this equatorial bulge and it is this which gives rise to the ocean tides. I acknowledge the small complimentary effects due to oblateness and rotation as discussed by D.H.

My interest in the calculation of the equatorial bulge due to rotation, is to understand the modelling of the inner viscoelasticity estimates. I suspect that they have been inferred from the observed flexure of the lithosphere .i.e due to the assumption of Newton's law of universal gravitation and to 'fit the facts'. Or perhaps the inner Earth temperatures are overestimates, which would lead to an underestimate of the resistive viscoelastic force?


Prediction and Proof for the Core-Centered Theory Of Gravity (CCTG):

The current standard model of the tides would predict that the tidal forces act evenly over the globe to give an even bulge of the Earth. My theory predicts that an additional central bulge should be detected on top of the global bulge. I am proposing that the inner core is accelerated more strongly, so giving a greater central pressure. This should be especially apparent at a Spring Tide and measurable by modern satellite technology. The shape of the tidal bulge should be proof of my theory. I am currently searching for any existing data on the exact shape of the Earth tide.

[Steve100]

I still can't do it! I can't find the 'delete' option, only edit mode.

You have to be quick.

[common_sense_seeker]

You have to be quick.

In what way? I move the cursor over the Edit icon, and the info tag says "edit/delete message". If I press the left mouse button, it goes straight to edit mode. If you delete the whole message by hand it responds with an error saying it must be at least 3 characters long.

[Steve100]

In what way? I move the cursor over the Edit icon, and the info tag says "edit/delete message". If I press the left mouse button, it goes straight to edit mode. If you delete the whole message by hand it responds with an error saying it must be at least 3 characters long.

It doesn't let you delete messages after so long, so you have to do it relatively soon.
It doesn't let you edit them after a while too.

[common_sense_seeker]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll try it now.

It still didn't work! (I'm guessing that I don't have the privilege yet, it's not in my 'posting rules')