[sandokhan]

Since you like calculations so much, go ahead and use the density/volume of the core, outer core, mantle, litosphere (using the land/mountain/oceans mass for each hemisphere) to reach a final result.

An intelligent approach is to realize that F₁ will be greater than F₂, since m₁ > m₂.

Remember, it does not matter if the difference is measured in the nth decimal place: according to Newton, who only wrote down the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation, the force of gravitation deals ONLY with mass, distance and the constant G.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

That doesn't look like a calculation to me, sandokhan.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

Let me help you help yourself:

Very easy.

This is the "law" put forth by Newton in the Principia:

F = GmM/r²

M = mass of the Sun, which stays fixed

m₁ = mass of the northern hemisphere

m₂ = mass of the southern hemisphere

Ratio:

Gm₁M/r²/Gm₂M/r² = m₁/m₂

Since by hypothesis, m₁ > m₂, the northern hemisphere will be subjected to a greater gravitational force than the southern hemisphere will.

We're on the right track here! You were so close with this post, but then you started going off on a tangent. Let's bring it back to this point.
You gave F1/F2=m1/m2, which is a useful relation. If you give an estimate for m1 and m2 you can actually work out F1 and F2, and then we can start to discuss the result.

m1 and m2 should be easy enough to estimate, if you know the extra mass on the northern hemisphere. if mE is the mass of the Earth and mM is the mass of the extra mountains etc in the northern hemisphere,
m1=(mE/2)+mM
m2=(mE/2)-mM

I think that's correct. We're so close sandokhan. Plug and chug, plug and chug!

[Tim Alphabeaver]

It's slowly dawning on me, sandokhan. You can't perform this calculation, can you? Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion. You've never actually calculated this before, and someone asking you to actually perform a calculation to back up your claim is so alien to you that you have no idea how to react. Am I right or wrong?

Should be easy to show that I'm wrong, just perform the calculation. 

[sandokhan]

Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion.


It is the opinion issued by modern science:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere

"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."

Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.



For Pangea, the situation is even more clear:



Therefore, my calculations are correct.

This is the "law" put forth by Newton in the Principia:

F = GmM/r2

M = mass of the Sun, which stays fixed

m1 = mass of the northern hemisphere

m2 = mass of the southern hemisphere

Ratio:

Gm1M/r2/Gm2M/r2 = m1/m2

Since by hypothesis, m1 > m2, the northern hemisphere will be subjected to a greater gravitational force than the southern hemisphere will.


Here are more references which do acknowledge that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere:

https://sciencing.com/differences-between-northern-southern-hemisphere-8260091.html

"The vast majority of the Earth’s land mass is also found in the Northern Hemisphere."

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850

"The Northern Hemisphere has more land and less ocean than the Southern Hemisphere."

Then, we are dealing with a massive defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation: since the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, the North Pole should be facing the Sun.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

Your claim is not based on evidence, it's just your opinion.


It is the opinion issued by modern science

I already understand your claim that there is more mass in the northern hemisphere. I'm not contesting that, nor have I ever contested that. Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform. A calculation that you claim to know the result of without actually performing the calculation. You seem to think that handwaving is okay, and that putting in the values to see the result of the calculation is unnecessary, because you already know the answer. How you actually know the answer is anyone's guess.

I think this is intellectually dishonest. Clearly we disagree on this point.

Since you refuse to answer my point directly by refusing to actually perform the calculation that you think proves you right, I think it's safe to say that your evidence, and by extension your whole argument, is unfounded. Your claim is entirely opinion until you can actually back it up with numbers.

[sandokhan]

Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform.

It is also the claim of modern science.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere

"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."

Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.


https://sciencing.com/differences-between-northern-southern-hemisphere-8260091.html

"The vast majority of the Earth’s land mass is also found in the Northern Hemisphere."

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850

"The Northern Hemisphere has more land and less ocean than the Southern Hemisphere."

Then, we are dealing with a massive defiance of Newton's law of universal gravitation: since the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, the North Pole should be facing the Sun.

By direct observation we can see that m1 > m2:



m1 = mass of the northern hemisphere

m2 = mass of the southern hemisphere

Clearly we disagree on this point.

Then, you are a flat earth believer, since you deny that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

Then, you are a flat earth believer, since you deny that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere.

Me: I already understand your claim that there is more mass in the northern hemisphere. I'm not contesting that, nor have I ever contested that.

Hello? Can you actually read my comment this time? I think this is the problem here, you're not reading any of the things I type.
Are you just trolling me?

[Macarios]

You are still calculating northern and southern hemispheres from geometric center, and forces don't act there, they act in the center of mass.

[markjo]

Your claim is based on a calculation that you refuse to perform.

It is also the claim of modern science.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/southern-hemisphere

"The Southern Hemisphere has much less land than the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in weaker asymmetries at its lower boundary."

Therefore, the northern hemisphere has more mass then the southern hemisphere.

I think that you're operating under the assumption that land mass is a significant portion of the earth's mass.  That is not true.  The earth's crust (where all of the land mass resides) is relatively light and very thin compared to the inner layers of the earth, therefore has very little effect on the overall center of gravity. 

[spherical]

Are you guys really discussing mass difference of an oblate spheroid with 3980 miles radius and the average ocean dept of only 1.7 mile? 
Even without water, it is only 1/2341 (0.000427)... an orange fruit skin has 26x more irregularities. 45mm radius, 0.5mm dept, 1/90, 2341/90 = 26.   

An average rock (quartz) density goes from 2.0 to 2.6g/cm3, meaning worst case of 2.6 denser than water. It means the 1.7 mile average dept filled with water could be converted to the equivalent of (1.7 * (1-(1/2.6)) = 1.7 * 0.61 = 1.05 mile without water, what squeezes the ratio to 1.05 / 3980 = (1/3804) 0.000263, the orange skin = 42x has more pronounced irregularities.

Gravity acceleration measured by (Nasa Grace and European Goce) satellites results don't follow exactly the land/ocean topography, there are other factors involved, like metals in rocky formation, etc.   

Just the oblate difference from Polar to Equatorial radius give us 14 miles, that is almost 14 times more pronounced than the conversion rock to water in oceans.  It means the oblate kills any discussion about ocean dept and missing rocky mass. This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.

[sandokhan]

Your bravado is noticeable, but it amounts to nothing at all.

It doesn't matter if you go to the fourth decimal place (difference between F1 and F2), Newton's law of universal gravitation still applies.

As you might have noticed by now, mainstream science acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart.

This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.

Not so fast.

GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.

This is the reason why mainstream relativists are abandoning Einstein's version of relativity and are embracing MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

If you want to claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, you must explain the missing orbital Coriolis effect and the missing solar gravitational potential in relation to the GPS satellites.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.

lol, frames of reference are hard, yeah? Way to drag in another completely unrelated topic though.

[markjo]

Your bravado is noticeable, but it amounts to nothing at all.

It doesn't matter if you go to the fourth decimal place (difference between F1 and F2), Newton's law of universal gravitation still applies.

As you might have noticed by now, mainstream science acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart.

This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.

From what I understand, the earth's axial tilt is more likely due to the intense bombardment during its early history rather than the mass distribution on its surface.
https://www.universetoday.com/75897/why-is-the-earth-tilted/

GPS satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect (not to mention the Sagnac efect) or the solar gravitational potential.

What is your basis for this assertion?  It seems to me that if GPS did not take those (plus several other) factors into account, then it wouldn't be capable of achieving centimeter accuracy in survey grade devices.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

What is your basis for this assertion?  It seems to me that if GPS did not take those (plus several other) factors into account, then it wouldn't be capable of achieving centimeter accuracy in survey grade devices.

He's already posted about this in another thread. It comes from this article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Sandokhan is going to try to claim that the fact that GPS satellites don't take orbital coriolos into effect shows that GPS doesn't exist, or the Earth doesn't orbit the sun or something equally ridiculous. If you actually read the article, however, you'll see that this coriolis force doesn't exist because GPS satellites are almost exclusively considered in Earth-centered frames of reference.

The paper even states:
, if the receiver velocity is referred to a heliocentric inertial frame or even to a frame beyond the
solar system, the Earth’s orbital motion should be taken into account in addition.

So sandokhan's claim that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun is based on mathematics that explicitly takes the Earth's motion around the Sun into account.

@sandokhan maybe we can discuss this in the other thread, if you want to get into this in more detail
EDIT: I just checked, and that thread had nothing to do with this topic either, so it's equally unrelated in both this thread and the other thread. ex deee

[spherical]

If you want to claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, you must explain the missing orbital Coriolis effect and the missing solar gravitational potential in relation to the GPS satellites.

So, you are saying that if I tie a small rock to a string, rotate it horizontally inside an airplane (centrifugal force) while flying at steady 600km/h West, the centripetal force I feel on my hand would change according to the direction the rock in the rotation East or West?  Would I feel pulling bumps?  Yeah, frame of reference is really confusing for some people.

I posted weeks ago, the car's tire in movement, touching the ground is literally stopped, the upper part is moving forward at twice the speed of the car.  For lots of people this is really confusing, for the car wheel shaft reference it is pretty simple.

Even so, wanting to consider Sun's frame of reference, Earth's gravity acceleration is much more pronounced (1600+) upon everything over the planet, even satellites, than Sun's gravitational pull, 5.9E-3m/s², 0.0006 x Earth's gravitational acceleration.

[tellytubby]

So it is Sandokhans clear assertion that the Earth is not in orbit around the Sun.  Fair enough. What remains constant in all of this is the evidence available to us. We all see the same things and events in the heavens.  What is different is our interpretations of what we see.  To some the Earth appears stationary at the centrer with the whole of the heavens rotating around it.  To others this movement  can be equally explained by what is the modern heliocentric model.

I would be interested to find out what Sandokhans explanation is for the trigonometric parallax observed in stars.  The back and forth motion occurs over the same period as the Earths orbit around the Sun.