Conversation The Common Room
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat

About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

The weight of the earth

a question for you brainy types

1 2 3 Next >  Last >> 

Hierophant  Male  East Anglia 5-Jun-2019 11:00 Message #4741318
I was pondering something after watching a programme about the Victorians and the industrial revolution - maybe someone can answer it.
Over hundreds of years humans around the world have mined coal and minerals and extracted oil and gas - millions and millions of tonnes has been removed and mostly burnt, so basically no longer exists.
So, does this mean the earth weighs a lot less now than it did? Could this loss of mass affect the earth's rotation because it's centre of gravity has altered? Has it already affected it?
Am I talking nonsense?
Where's Jason when you need him?

Serious or totally bonkers answers are welcome...
tumbleweed  Male  Gloucestershire 5-Jun-2019 11:28 Message #4741323
A good question...and one that has the potential of becoming MSE's most mud slinging 'ding dong' battle worn thread in living history...

Personally, I think that when they went to the moon, they brought some moon rock stuff back, and every now and then, they take some of it out of the weightless vacuum thing that they keep it in, to counteract any weight loss that happens around the world...They are running out of it now though, so need to go and get some more..
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia 5-Jun-2019 11:31 Message #4741324
Indeed, although I will be intrigued to see how we incorporate Brexit, Corbyn or Trump into a question about the earth's weight... lol
mancers  Male  Greater Manchester 5-Jun-2019 11:31 Message #4741325
In that case tumbleweed the Moon will eventually disappear, affecting our tides!
SQL  Male  Devon 5-Jun-2019 11:34 Message #4741327
The weight of the earth (the planet) is zero.

It's mass is roughly 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 imperial tons.

The mass of the coal, wood etc. burnt since the start of the age of Homo Sapiens is irrelevant as all the matter is either in the atmosphere as gases or an the ground as ash etc. Apart from nuclear fission or fusion matter is neither created or destroyed by chemical reactions (burning).

Solar particles are adding to the mass of the planet, the solar wind is slowly stripping off the outermost layer of the planet's atmosphere so there is some change but largely due to the Sun and not Homo Sapiens.

The power of Homo Sapiens, although doing significant damage to the Earth's environment, is miniscule compared to the power of the Sun and the body of our planet.

Jeff  Male  East Sussex 5-Jun-2019 13:22 Message #4741329

"Could this loss of mass affect the earth's rotation because it's centre of gravity has altered?"

The centre of gravity of the Earth hasn't been altered. It's still at the centre.

Incidentally, assuming that the Earth is a perfect sphere, did you know that inside the Earth your weight decreases? For example, if you are say 100 kilometres below its surface, then (as proved by Newton about 333 years ago) the gravity of the surface spherical shell 100km thick cancels out, so effectively you are only attracted by a sphere having 100km shorter radius. When you reach the centre of the Earth, you weigh practically nothing.

The Earth and its matter obeys the law of conservation of momentum. Matter leaving Earth can be likened to a spinning ice skater spreading her arms, which slows the spin.

"I will be intrigued to see how we incorporate Brexit, Corbyn or Trump"

Trust SQL to use imperial tons! As he supports Brexit he probably wants to leave the metric system. But SQL knows classical physics and he is correct to refer to mass rather than weight.
Like Donald Trump, SQL seems to deny that most of current climate change is man-made.
As Jeremy Corbyn does so much opposing, (even his own party in the past), perhaps the only reason that he doesn't also oppose the great majority of climate scientists is that it would make him agree with Trump.
terry  Male  West Yorkshire 5-Jun-2019 14:14 Message #4741330
Excellent question, and excellent subject to discuss.

Being one of these 'scum' that live off the rest of society and disagree or protest about almost everything mankind does to destroy the earth, I sadly have to agree that what we do to the earth is minor compared to what the sun, 'space' and other planets do to it. However, if you bring time into the discussion, the sun works a damn site slower than mankind does, so to bring the aforementioned characters into it, I would argue the tories and trump and the money grabbing industrialists/profiteers will get rid of us a darned site quicker.

On a more serious note, it is a fascinating subject and no, I don't think you're talking nonsense Heirophant, in fact they're the most interesting words I've seen you post for a long time and you've almost restored my faith in humanity. I'm looking forward to reading more posts on this subject such as Jeff's and SQL's.
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia 5-Jun-2019 14:25 Message #4741331
Oh terry, stop it you're making me blush!
It's slightly worrying you need words from me to restore your faith in humanity...
tumbleweed  Male  Gloucestershire 5-Jun-2019 14:26 Message #4741333
I don't know any more on the subject, I just know the moon rock thing, and that came from the postmans mates sister in laws bestfriend, who happened to go out with Neil Armstrong, the day he came back, and he had some of the rock in his pocket...
Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 5-Jun-2019 15:55 Message #4741340
I don't think we're changing the climate. The climate has always been continually changing before we were here. I think we are polluting the atmosphere, and ourselves.
SQL  Male  Devon 5-Jun-2019 18:39 Message #4741346
Is your real name Donald Trump?

Please tell me what is happening to the 3,000,000,000+ tonnes of carbon dioxide that the actions of Homo Sapiens are producing annually on this planet.

Carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse' gas (it tends to conserve heat received by this planet from the Sun) - even D.Trump does not refute this.

Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 5-Jun-2019 20:53 Message #4741351
Should that be a question for the scientists. Preferably ones whose research funding doesn't rely heavily on their welfare.
SQL  Male  Devon 5-Jun-2019 21:25 Message #4741354
Gilpin - 5-Jun-2019 20:53

No, that question is for you - you have clearly stated "I don't think we're changing the climate" so I am asking a very relevant question that you should be able to answer to justify your stance on the subject of climate change.

OnlineMSE  Male  Essex 5-Jun-2019 21:37 Message #4741355
The new Prof Brian Cox programme The Planets (2nd episode last night) is awesome and well worth catching up on.
The enormity of what has happened and continues to happen in just our solar system is mind boggling.

Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 5-Jun-2019 21:38 Message #4741356
I already did. Planet earth is in constant climate change. Since its early conception. That is proven.

"Manmade" C21 climate change/global warming, like a lot of things in our modern world, is not always proven without doubt. And not all scientists agree with the present theory, or the published findings of the IPPC, the UN's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
tumbleweed  Male  Gloucestershire 5-Jun-2019 21:43 Message #4741357
Usually, after Christmas, the World has put on weight, so then it needs to become...Slimming World
Jeff  Male  East Sussex 5-Jun-2019 22:01 Message #4741358

Sorry, I seem to have misjudged your position on climate change. Thank you for having that dialogue with Gilpin.


You are right that over its long history the climate has been mainly caused by the sun, and there have been large fluctuations. However, notice that in my post of today at 13:22 I wrote "most of current climate change is man-made" with "current" emphasized. includes:-
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. ... American Association for the Advancement of Science ... American Chemical Society ... American Geophysical Union ... American Medical Association ... American Meteorological Society ... American Physical Society ... The Geological Society of America ... U.S. National Academy of Sciences ... U.S. Global Change Research Program ... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action."

Although experts can be wrong, and the majority opinion is not always right, I think that the above "Inconvenient Truth" is much, much more likely to be true than climate change deniers, such as Donald Trump, the extreme serial liar, polluter, cheat, etc. who doesn't care about other countries or the future.
Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 5-Jun-2019 22:23 Message #4741360
Oh dear. Your last para has totally discredited your input. Name calling and slander is so part of the climate change protest mob, bent on disruption of ordinary people going about their business, to make their point.

You would have to examine each one of those institutions you have named to reach a positive truth. If they are government related, I would not trust them. You are aware that they all appear to be American companies. "Actively publishing climate scientists" what does that mean exactly. "World wide"? No they're not, they're American. Honestly, it sounds to me like a sell. But that's my opinion of course.
SQL  Male  Devon 5-Jun-2019 22:43 Message #4741361
Gilpin - 5-Jun-2019 21:38

No you haven't answered and not even done an effective side-step. Let me give you another chance to answer and give you a little more uncontested data.

Please tell me what is happening to the 3,000,000,000+ tonnes of carbon dioxide that the actions of Homo Sapiens are producing annually on this planet.

Natural activity, volcanoes and the like, emit on average approximately 250,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (plus other pollutants) into the atmosphere annually - so you can appreciate the effect of the activities of Homo Sapiens far exceeds natural contributions.

If you are unable to clarify what the outcome of the 3,000,000,000+ tonnes of carbon dioxide produced by Homo Sapiens then you must admit you are skating on extremely thin (to the point of being plain water) ice in your refuting the contributions of Homo Sapiens to climate change.

Just saying 'I do not believe' puts you in the same camp as D.Trump, and his stance, as far as I am concerned, is governed by the money and support he receives from big business including oil and coal in the US.

Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 5-Jun-2019 22:57 Message #4741363

Unless you come up with undisputed proof that climate change is man made I will not believe. nor do I have to prove a negative. For a species that can't predict the direction a violent hurricane is taking, or a tsunami, where either will hit landfall, and other comparatively simple phenomena I would not give credit to the same having the answers for so called man-made climate. Climate is a big word.

Fools believe without question. And the money you mentioned in your last para. can equally be related to those who fund scientists for their research and to get the answers they want.
SQL  Male  Devon 6-Jun-2019 09:12 Message #4741372
Gilpin - 5-Jun-2019 22:57

I am not asking you to prove a negative [which, by the way can be done - see drug trials], I am asking you a very simple question to which you seem to be completely unable to give a straight answer.

Please tell me what is happening to the 3,000,000,000+ tonnes of carbon dioxide that the actions of Homo Sapiens are producing annually on this planet.


By the way - I have run my 'vocabulary profiling' package against your input on here and the results show you are probably a poster who was on here some time back and got removed for violating site rules - care to elaborate?
Gilpin  Female  Middlesex 6-Jun-2019 13:15 Message #4741378
I don't respond well to personal accusations or character abuse. I strongly recommend you ask Management to do your 'vocabulary profiling' package, or I shall, and that you name the 'package' you use. Do it. What is it called? Lets see who is the greater lier.

As to your 'question' of "3,000,000,000+ tonnes of carbon dioxide that the actions of Homo Sapiens are producing annually on this planet". Why ask that question? Did you get it off an exam paper? And it makes you sound clever? Are you sure any average member of the public goes around with that type of physics data in their head. You sound absurd.
Jeff  Male  East Sussex 6-Jun-2019 14:08 Message #4741380

Looking forward to your answer to SQL's repeated question, instead of persistently evading it.

"Name calling and slander is so part of the climate change protest mob, bent on disruption of ordinary people going about their business, to make their point."

I have never been part of a "mob". If certain people going about their business have very detrimental effects on many people, then those businesses should be disrupted, if possible without violence.

Slander and (if written) libe are about making false statements about someone. My statements are not false. I'll justify my phrases, and refrain here from detailing some other characteristics of Trump such as tremendous hypocrisy, abuse of power, etc.

Donald Trump is an "extreme serial liar". For example, the Washington Post says up to 27-Apr-19 "In 828 days, President Trump has made 10,111 false or misleading claims", of which many Trump repeated numerous times despite having been corrected. They give Trump's quotes, (checkable from videos and Twitter so not "fake news"), then go into details of the facts.
On 29-Apr-19 includes:-
"There was a 45-minute telephone interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News on April 25: 45 claims. There was an eight-minute gaggle with reporters the morning of April 26: eight claims. There was a speech to the National Rifle Association: 24 claims. There was 19-minute interview with radio host Mark Levin: 17 claims. And, finally, there was the campaign rally on April 27: 61 claims.
The president’s constant Twitter barrage also adds to his totals. All told, the president racked up 171 false or misleading claims in just three days, April 25-27 ...
— He exaggerated the size of trade deficits with Japan, China and the European Union and falsely claimed the United States loses money from such deficits.
— He said he had “nothing to hide” from the Russia investigation but refused to testify under oath.
— He continued his practice of inflating the jobs created under his administration by starting the count from the election, not his inauguration.
— He launched a series of exaggerated or false attacks on Democrats, including claiming the Green New Deal will require every building in Manhattan be replaced (no) and saying Democrats support the killing of healthy babies that have been born (no). ...
— He made a series of false claims about immigration, such as “open borders bring tremendous crime” (there is no documented link between illegal immigration and crime).
— He claimed he passed the biggest tax cut in history (no) and he said he had cut the estate tax to “zero” (no).
— He said he was one vote away from repealing Obamacare (no).
— He falsely said the United States paid for “almost 100 percent” of NATO (no), that Saudi Arabia inked $450 billion in deals with the Trump administration (no) and even that the United States subsidizes the Saudi military (U.S. aid amounts to $10,000 a year)."

The Politifact website also details many of Trump's lies, and clicking a statement takes you to the details. It classifies those that it lists as 5% "True", 11% "Mostly True", 14% "Half True", 21% "Mostly False", 34% "False" and 15% "Pants on Fire".

Jeff  Male  East Sussex 6-Jun-2019 14:12 Message #4741381
Donald Trump is a "polluter". For example, National Geographic dated 01-Feb-19 includes:-
"1. U.S. pulls out of Paris Climate Agreement ...
2. Trump EPA poised to scrap clean power plan ...
[EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency]
3. EPA loosens regulations on toxic air pollution ...
4. Rescinding methane-flaring rules ...
5. Trump announces plan to weaken Obama-era fuel economy rules ...
6. Trump revokes flood standards accounting for sea-level rise ...
7. Waters of the U.S. Rule revocation ...
8. NOAA green lights seismic airgun blasts for oil and gas drilling ...
9. Interior Department relaxes sage grouse protection ...
10. Trump officials propose changes to handling the Endangered Species Act ...
11. Migratory Bird Treaty Act reinterpretation ...
12. Trump unveils plan to dramatically downsize two national monuments ...
13. Executive order calls for sharp logging increase on public lands ...
14. Trump drops climate change from list of national security threats ...
15. EPA criminal enforcement hits 30-year low ..."

Trump greatly supports digging for more coal, which is very polluting. includes some of Trump's unsuitable appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, etc, some attempts to restrict information on the environmen, etc.

Jeff  Male  East Sussex 6-Jun-2019 14:14 Message #4741382
Donald Trump is a "cheat". For example, on 26-Sep-16 Hillary Clinton said "For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. ... So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t [Trump] release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody’s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax."
Trump responded "That makes me smart."
Then Dana Bash asked him "it sounds like you admitted that you hadn’t paid federal taxes and that, that was smart. Is that what you meant to say?". Trump replied "No, I didn’t say that at all. I mean if they say I didn’t, I mean it doesn’t matter."

In the book "Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump" Rick Reilly details many well-known people who have played golf with Trump allege that he cheats.

Trump boasts about his book "The Art of the Deal". But it was actually written by Tony Schwarz, who and his publisher said that Trump played no role in writing it.

Trump had 4 bankruptcies, costing other people billions of dollars. Trump said "I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in business. I did a very good job."
The Atlantic City Taj Mahal casino opened in 1990, and 1 year later it was nearly $3 billion in debt and Trump owed nearly $900 million in personal liabilities.
In 2004 Trump Hotels and Casinos Resort went bankrupt owing about $1.8 billion
The New York Times investigated his bankruptcies and in 2016 reported that Trump "put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses, and other payments."


1 2 3 Next >  Last >> 

Back to top  Back to top

Help with conversations Help with conversations »