Is there more matter between the surface and center? Does gravity pull where the most mass is? Does matter get pulled from the center? Would there be negative gravity at the center?
This is right in simple physics (not simple for the layman of course) but it seems intuitive that gravity is stronger somewhere inside the Earth, probably standing on the outer core (maybe even inner core?), after going through the mantle, you would actually experience a stronger gravitational acceleration than 9.81m/s2. Clearly calculations of this sort are difficult but if I had to guess I'd say gravity always decreases away from surface, however once going inside the planet, gravity would decrease slowly until increasing once density really kicks in, and may even get stronger than surface gravity.
that point at the centre is a stable Lagrange point assuming you could put something there and it wasnt spherical it would be weirdly offset and would have a strange concept of left right up and down. It would spin if it wasnt spherical and gravitationally flat in the earths reference frame. I wonder if this math holds up on a black hole. If there is a null point in spacetime at the centre then it could be an event horizon inside the core, think that the event horizon isnt a physical thing, its just where space twists so hard that all straight lines end up vectored away from the singularity. inside they twist towards the singularity so none of its light gets out and no light from our perspective gets in. If spacetime does straighten back up at the centre of a black hole, even if its just a mm spherical but flat space, it could hold the entire observable universe inside it on one scale of perspective, outside observers see a hot infinitely dense thing, but inside it an observer running at the dilated tick rate for a compressed universe of that size, could say it was cool and normal and flat If the black hole goes super critical in this reality it could explode into a pocket of spacetime, between 2 event horizons and neither would know anything changed. it could have a big a bang as it liked and as long as nothing breaks the speed of light the information wont reach that twist in spacetime either side of things. The fundamental forces unite at a certain pressure and temperature, when does gravity become moot. If a black hole explodes its ripples can expand forever infinitely in finite space. A pocket dimension or russian nesting doll type thing. That central point of the gravity well is a peak tho 10:00 is what a gravity well of a planet looks like, just flip it over.. and mirror it for a sphere.. Take all you know, and now go look at a rotating sphere of water in microgravity. Do you think density models and the iron core hold up, especially when you can see bubbles treating the inside of the sphere as up being down and down being up. What if its really crazy.. if you added some syrup into the rotating sphere of water what happens to it, would it form a molten core, or would it be on the exterior of the sphere like the tea leaves.. If you take time from spacetime, you can model the earth flat like the UN charter map. it represents starting at the north pole, every point on the outside of the map is the south pole, its a gravitationally flat model of what the earth looks like in 2d.. this top layer is about 40,000 miles across, now do the same thing but at one mile intervals as you go lower into the earth, assuming ghost mode is enabled.., each map gets smaller and smaller as you go as your orbit is a smaller path in curved space.. you would end up with just under 400 layers of earth and the final one would be infinitely small.. This is a map of the earth if you had space but removed the dimension of time. it is gravitationally flat, If you stack them, with the centre as your reference point then the earth is candy corn shaped, or a cone.. because the same math works for cones and spheres, they are the same thing. On a cone the radius of the earth is your depth, but the circumference multiplied by that radius squared, gives us the volume of both the cone and sphere.. there are a few videos about martini glasses here on youtube, but they are weird, once you go 20% into the earth 50% of its volume is already cleared., although you have 80% of the way to go you should have less to deal with from there on out.. every 20% further you go, you clear 50% of the volume that remains.. idk it just doesnt feel right, but it is.. density being taken into consideration changes what tho when we are just a ball of water in microgravity, inside the sphere gravity cancels itself out. how density pressure and temperature work into things is brain frying.. but it is 6 am and iv been smoking all night.. so yeah.. That central point at all massive objects could be a manifold point into higher dimensions. the point where the klein glass comes back through itself. Making it so we can make a donut or toroidal shape in higher dimensions.. imagine all matter is this side of the window, and all antimatter is that side of the window. down is up and up is down, matter in the xyz+1 universe, and anti matter in the xyz-1 dimension. its hard to put into numbers, im more about visualising things.. General relativity is weird as you go through your sphere your clock would be ticking at the core the same rate as something in orbit around the planet. Time ticks faster as you get to the surface and then slower as you approach the core, from either side of the membrane.
why are you reducing the whole earth's volume when we are falling in? I get that the side of the earth's crust we jumped from and is now above us, is no longer attracting us gravitationally. But the crust on the opposite side of the earth still is.
Nevermind. I guess that if we count the opposite side crust's mass, then the center of gravity of the mass attracting us would be further away, thus cancelling out the need of taking the extra mass into account.
Incorrect analysis because you did not account for the balancing force which is present which is the resistance of a body moving through the air. Your analysis is only correct for a vacuum (or nearly a vacuum). At the surface of the earth, the maximum velocity a falling human body reaches is between 120 and 140 mph. Obviously, that is much less than a body in low earth orbit. I submit to you that simply doing a force balance analysis at any point along this imaginary tunnel would yield a maximum velocity achievable as well. A spread sheet could be done with solutions calculated for the maximum velocity at various points along this imaginary tunnel using the expression you developed for gravity at at ever point to see whether or not the max velocity was increasing or decreasing as the fictitious body approached the center of the earth. We already have an equation which calculates this resistance - it's the drag equation. The resisting force, F, is the (coefficient of resistance specific to the body, Cd)(the projected area of the falling body, A,)(the velocity, V, squared)(the density of the air, the fluid the body is moving through, lower case Rho) divided by 2. So, at the surface, when mass, m, times acceleration due to gravity, g = CdApV^2/2 describes the terminal velocity. Vterminal = sqr root(2mg/(CdAp)) So, the only issue with this equation for the resisting force equation is that the density of the air will also vary as the body moves through this imaginary tunnel. Using your spring analogy, the drag equation would be the dampening force - wouldn't it? There's probably a more elegant way to find the maximum velocity obtained. An equation for which the first derivative can be taken and then set equal to zero and solved would do the trick, right? I bet it will be much less than a low earth orbit velocity, which is something like 17000 mph
It must be opposite in center of Earth in mass center must be maximum force and maximum g value that how thermonuclear sum gravity works massive mass of sun squeezes hydrogen in the center of Sun to the point more than 5 mullion Kelvin temperature and the fission reaction of hydrogen nucleus reaction happens same to black holes Schwartzchild radius gravity squeezes into very small ball. That is model of heliocentrism is wrong or g=0 in the center of Earth is wrong.
You're confusing pressure and density with force. Yes, pressure and density will be at their maximum at the centre. But if you can imagine a cannonball right at the centre, then all the mass of the earth is outside it. Every molecule of the earth is attracting the cannonball but they're all evenly distributed all the way around so it's being pulled evenly in every direction. Net gravitational force on the cannonball = zero.
He's using 'heliocentrism' like it's a debatable term which suggests he's a flat earth proponent (yes, unfortunately, they do exist in this day and age). Flat earthers are _very_ confused about density. And magnetism. And electrostatics. And astronomy. And seismology. And logic. ... etc, etc, etc.
@@davelister2961 At least they don't use argument of "leap of faith" or you "heliocentric model" cannot explain Google maps oil rigs that are 80 km from shore but not go from the camera view - mirage, air index of refraction etc.. "Leap of faith" argument smells like "scientism" cult not genuine science. And using "confused" argument to explain density, free fall g=0 in the center of Earth. If you dug tunnel through Earth ,Google search answer is: The correct answer is (ignoring heat and air resistance) that something dropped down a hole through the center of the earth would accelerate all the way to the center, then decelerate as it passed center, and would stop at the opposite end of the hole (earth's surface) and fall back, repeating the cycle. Flat earthers? Earth can be: convex, flat, concave. Concave or (Hollow Earth) is true reality. Gravity force is not pulling but pushing force from center of geocentric model. Flat earth - red herring (a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.). When logic hits heliocentric model you always can use "strawman" argument to say you don't understand, confused or call flat earther.
Is there more matter between the surface and center? Does gravity pull where the most mass is?
Does matter get pulled from the center?
Would there be negative gravity at the center?
This is right in simple physics (not simple for the layman of course) but it seems intuitive that gravity is stronger somewhere inside the Earth, probably standing on the outer core (maybe even inner core?), after going through the mantle, you would actually experience a stronger gravitational acceleration than 9.81m/s2. Clearly calculations of this sort are difficult but if I had to guess I'd say gravity always decreases away from surface, however once going inside the planet, gravity would decrease slowly until increasing once density really kicks in, and may even get stronger than surface gravity.
that point at the centre is a stable Lagrange point assuming you could put something there and it wasnt spherical it would be weirdly offset and would have a strange concept of left right up and down. It would spin if it wasnt spherical and gravitationally flat in the earths reference frame.
I wonder if this math holds up on a black hole. If there is a null point in spacetime at the centre then it could be an event horizon inside the core, think that the event horizon isnt a physical thing, its just where space twists so hard that all straight lines end up vectored away from the singularity. inside they twist towards the singularity so none of its light gets out and no light from our perspective gets in. If spacetime does straighten back up at the centre of a black hole, even if its just a mm spherical but flat space, it could hold the entire observable universe inside it on one scale of perspective, outside observers see a hot infinitely dense thing, but inside it an observer running at the dilated tick rate for a compressed universe of that size, could say it was cool and normal and flat
If the black hole goes super critical in this reality it could explode into a pocket of spacetime, between 2 event horizons and neither would know anything changed. it could have a big a bang as it liked and as long as nothing breaks the speed of light the information wont reach that twist in spacetime either side of things.
The fundamental forces unite at a certain pressure and temperature, when does gravity become moot. If a black hole explodes its ripples can expand forever infinitely in finite space. A pocket dimension or russian nesting doll type thing.
That central point of the gravity well is a peak tho 10:00 is what a gravity well of a planet looks like, just flip it over.. and mirror it for a sphere..
Take all you know, and now go look at a rotating sphere of water in microgravity. Do you think density models and the iron core hold up, especially when you can see bubbles treating the inside of the sphere as up being down and down being up. What if its really crazy.. if you added some syrup into the rotating sphere of water what happens to it, would it form a molten core, or would it be on the exterior of the sphere like the tea leaves..
If you take time from spacetime, you can model the earth flat like the UN charter map. it represents starting at the north pole, every point on the outside of the map is the south pole, its a gravitationally flat model of what the earth looks like in 2d.. this top layer is about 40,000 miles across, now do the same thing but at one mile intervals as you go lower into the earth, assuming ghost mode is enabled.., each map gets smaller and smaller as you go as your orbit is a smaller path in curved space.. you would end up with just under 400 layers of earth and the final one would be infinitely small.. This is a map of the earth if you had space but removed the dimension of time. it is gravitationally flat, If you stack them, with the centre as your reference point then the earth is candy corn shaped, or a cone.. because the same math works for cones and spheres, they are the same thing. On a cone the radius of the earth is your depth, but the circumference multiplied by that radius squared, gives us the volume of both the cone and sphere.. there are a few videos about martini glasses here on youtube, but they are weird, once you go 20% into the earth 50% of its volume is already cleared., although you have 80% of the way to go you should have less to deal with from there on out.. every 20% further you go, you clear 50% of the volume that remains.. idk it just doesnt feel right, but it is.. density being taken into consideration changes what tho when we are just a ball of water in microgravity,
inside the sphere gravity cancels itself out. how density pressure and temperature work into things is brain frying.. but it is 6 am and iv been smoking all night.. so yeah..
That central point at all massive objects could be a manifold point into higher dimensions. the point where the klein glass comes back through itself. Making it so we can make a donut or toroidal shape in higher dimensions.. imagine all matter is this side of the window, and all antimatter is that side of the window. down is up and up is down, matter in the xyz+1 universe, and anti matter in the xyz-1 dimension. its hard to put into numbers, im more about visualising things..
General relativity is weird as you go through your sphere your clock would be ticking at the core the same rate as something in orbit around the planet. Time ticks faster as you get to the surface and then slower as you approach the core, from either side of the membrane.
You made it easy for me thanks❤
You're welcome 😊
nice video
why are you reducing the whole earth's volume when we are falling in?
I get that the side of the earth's crust we jumped from and is now above us, is no longer attracting us gravitationally. But the crust on the opposite side of the earth still is.
Nevermind. I guess that if we count the opposite side crust's mass, then the center of gravity of the mass attracting us would be further away, thus cancelling out the need of taking the extra mass into account.
I would love to see this video but with everything taken into consideration, including density changes.
nice one bro
Incorrect analysis because you did not account for the balancing force which is present which is the resistance of a body moving through the air. Your analysis is only correct for a vacuum (or nearly a vacuum). At the surface of the earth, the maximum velocity a falling human body reaches is between 120 and 140 mph.
Obviously, that is much less than a body in low earth orbit.
I submit to you that simply doing a force balance analysis at any point along this imaginary tunnel would yield a maximum velocity achievable as well.
A spread sheet could be done with solutions calculated for the maximum velocity at various points along this imaginary tunnel using the expression you developed for gravity at at ever point to see whether or not the max velocity was increasing or decreasing as the fictitious body approached the center of the earth.
We already have an equation which calculates this resistance - it's the drag equation.
The resisting force, F, is the (coefficient of resistance specific to the body, Cd)(the projected area of the falling body, A,)(the velocity, V, squared)(the density of the air, the fluid the body is moving through, lower case Rho) divided by 2.
So, at the surface, when mass, m, times acceleration due to gravity, g = CdApV^2/2 describes the terminal velocity. Vterminal = sqr root(2mg/(CdAp))
So, the only issue with this equation for the resisting force equation is that the density of the air will also vary as the body moves through this imaginary tunnel.
Using your spring analogy, the drag equation would be the dampening force - wouldn't it?
There's probably a more elegant way to find the maximum velocity obtained. An equation for which the first derivative can be taken and then set equal to zero and solved would do the trick, right? I bet it will be much less than a low earth orbit velocity, which is something like 17000 mph
It must be opposite in center of Earth in mass center must be maximum force and maximum g value that how thermonuclear sum gravity works massive mass of sun squeezes hydrogen in the center of Sun to the point more than 5 mullion Kelvin temperature and the fission reaction of hydrogen nucleus reaction happens same to black holes Schwartzchild radius gravity squeezes into very small ball. That is model of heliocentrism is wrong or g=0 in the center of Earth is wrong.
You're confusing pressure and density with force. Yes, pressure and density will be at their maximum at the centre. But if you can imagine a cannonball right at the centre, then all the mass of the earth is outside it. Every molecule of the earth is attracting the cannonball but they're all evenly distributed all the way around so it's being pulled evenly in every direction. Net gravitational force on the cannonball = zero.
He's using 'heliocentrism' like it's a debatable term which suggests he's a flat earth proponent (yes, unfortunately, they do exist in this day and age). Flat earthers are _very_ confused about density. And magnetism. And electrostatics. And astronomy. And seismology. And logic. ... etc, etc, etc.
@@davelister2961 At least they don't use argument of "leap of faith" or you "heliocentric model" cannot explain Google maps oil rigs that are 80 km from shore but not go from the camera view - mirage, air index of refraction etc.. "Leap of faith" argument smells like "scientism" cult not genuine science. And using "confused" argument to explain density, free fall g=0 in the center of Earth. If you dug tunnel through Earth ,Google search answer is:
The correct answer is (ignoring heat and air resistance) that something dropped down a hole through the center of the earth would accelerate all the way to the center, then decelerate as it passed center, and would stop at the opposite end of the hole (earth's surface) and fall back, repeating the cycle.
Flat earthers? Earth can be: convex, flat, concave. Concave or (Hollow Earth) is true reality. Gravity force is not pulling but pushing force from center of geocentric model. Flat earth - red herring (a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.).
When logic hits heliocentric model you always can use "strawman" argument to say you don't understand, confused or call flat earther.