What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby keithl » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:22 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:For 1cm/s, that's very roughly 1 atom added to a chunk of material for every 100 moles of that atom there were before, every second

    M=(4/3)πρR3
    dM/dt = 4πρR2(dR/dt)
    (dM/dt)/M = 3(dR/dt)/R
    (dR/dt)=0.01 m/s
    R = 6,371,000 m (average radius for oblate earth)
    (dM/dt)/M = 4.7e-9 /s
    Avogadro's number = 6.02e23 molecules/mole
    4.7e-9 * 6.02e23 --> 2.8e15 molecules per mole per second
If the extra mass is added with a relative velocity of 450 meters per second, the energy added per second to a gram of material is (dE/dt)/M = ½v²(dM/dt)/M = 4.8E-4 J/gm-sec = 40J/gm-day . The specific heat of granite is 0.8 J/gm-K, so the crust would heat by 50C/day .

I'll leave the computation of mechanical shear through the crust and against the mantle for others. Circulatory patterns in air demonstrate what Coriolis acceleration can do, and in this case Coriolis acceleration is shearing the plate, along with differential growth top to bottom. There's already a lot of built-up strain in the system; we can expect the heating and shear to release some of that.

My prescription: head for Antarctica, and assemble lots of rockets when you get there.
Last edited by keithl on Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

cameroda
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:29 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby cameroda » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:42 pm UTC

edo wrote:
Randall, in the title text of the last image wrote:If you liked it then you should have moved a mass inside its Roche limit.

Am I the only one to get this?
Spoiler:
"move a mass inside its Roche limit." = "Put a ring on it"


I guess there are not too many Beyonce fans on this thread... :mrgreen:

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:48 pm UTC

My guess would be that most of us got it but felt there was nothing to really comment about.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:28 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:For 1cm/s, that's very roughly 1 atom added to a chunk of material for every 100 moles of that atom there were before, every second

[...]
--> 2.8e15 molecules per mole per second

Oops, yeah, I was off by a factor of R2/3 (and rounding errors) by cubing dR to find dV rather than cubing the linear scale factor 1+dR to give 1+dV...

Drecksau
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:04 am UTC

Re: GPS messed up?

Postby Drecksau » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:11 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
syrinxsean wrote:So I don't get why GPS would be all messed up right off the bat. Yes, GPS is dependent upon very precise timing. But that's presumably timing for the satellites, not anything on the earth's surface. As GPS works in 3D (reporting altitude in addition to latitude and longitude), including in flight above the earth, presumably an increase of the earth's radius wouldn't affect the GPS satellites until they fell out of orbit due to increased gravity. What am I missing here?


Because GPS works by measuring distance to multiple satellites concurrently, and having precise ephemerides for each SV, thereby calculating position by solving the n-dimensional matrix for distance of each satellite. If the ephemerides are borked, so is GPS.


The GPS "configuration" gets updated and calibrated almost every day. A slightly change like in this situation would be covered by that handling IMO. Theoreticaly it would break the GPS, practicaly not.

Fooglmog
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:09 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby Fooglmog » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:24 pm UTC

Out of curiosity, how fast will the effects of the change in gravity in this scenario percolate to distant bodies?

As Earth's mass increases, the change in gravity would have some impact on other solar (and galactic [and universal]) bodies. And presumably this change would take some time to spread, and wouldn't be instantaneous (ie. it would be possible to detect the change on Mars before Proxima Centauri). Would this spread at the speed of light? I can't think of any reason why it should, but I also can't think of any reason for it to spread at another specific speed, and "speed of light" is a nice default answer for these things.

Does anyone know?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

Fooglmog wrote:Out of curiosity, how fast will the effects of the change in gravity in this scenario percolate to distant bodies?

As Earth's mass increases, the change in gravity would have some impact on other solar (and galactic [and universal]) bodies. And presumably this change would take some time to spread, and wouldn't be instantaneous (ie. it would be possible to detect the change on Mars before Proxima Centauri). Would this spread at the speed of light? I can't think of any reason why it should, but I also can't think of any reason for it to spread at another specific speed, and "speed of light" is a nice default answer for these things.

Does anyone know?

Gravitational waves are believed to travel at the speed of light.

So, probably, yeah.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5371
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

So by the time Earth has grown big enough to become a black hole, what's the closest object that still won't have noticed the supermassive body growing nearby?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Too distant to care; c is still too fast for that to make a real difference. You saw jotun's math. And the increase in mass is steadily increasing, but there's no sudden inflection point.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Milnoc
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:43 am UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby Milnoc » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:54 pm UTC

Just noticed the part where, after 5 years, your "weight" would increase from 70 to 88 "kg".

For shame, Randall! Using "weight" instead of "mass", and selecting a unit of measure that doesn't change even when gravity does change!

If you had chosen "pounds" as a unit of measure, you would have been in the clear! :P

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:57 pm UTC

Isn't it fair to assume he's talking about weight in kilogram-force, since that's already what your bathroom scale is telling you? He's obviously well aware of the distinction, because he mentions that the measurement on a balance scale wouldn't change.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

scotty03
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby scotty03 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:07 pm UTC

Breathing in this situation would be difficult. It's hard to suck in air against the weight of the water, which is why snorkels can only work when your lungs are near the surface.


Another reason snorkels only work near the surface is that if you are deeper, you require a longer tube, creating more 'dead space' ventilation.

Our bodies already contain a degree of dead space ventilation, it is the distance from the nose/mouth to the trachea, and also includes the trachea, right and left main bronchus, and further down until you get to the alveoli that actually perform the gas exchange process. By breathing through a pipe you massively increase the dead space ventilation, and your total lung volumes aren't large enough to expel the old air and get new air in. You instead just keep breathing the same air over and over again.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:21 pm UTC

Yeah, that's definitely another problem with breathing through a long tube, but I suspect the pressure becomes an issue before the dead space volume when you're under water. Inhaling through even a normal-sized snorkel is noticeably more difficult if you're vertical in the water instead of horizontal on the surface, and probably becomes near impossible for most people if they go down another meter or so, even if their lung capacity is large enough to continue getting at least some fresh air through an additional meter of tubing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:13 pm UTC

scotty03 wrote:
Breathing in this situation would be difficult. It's hard to suck in air against the weight of the water, which is why snorkels can only work when your lungs are near the surface.


Another reason snorkels only work near the surface is that if you are deeper, you require a longer tube, creating more 'dead space' ventilation.

Our bodies already contain a degree of dead space ventilation, it is the distance from the nose/mouth to the trachea, and also includes the trachea, right and left main bronchus, and further down until you get to the alveoli that actually perform the gas exchange process. By breathing through a pipe you massively increase the dead space ventilation, and your total lung volumes aren't large enough to expel the old air and get new air in. You instead just keep breathing the same air over and over again.

Dead space ventilation has an easy fix - breath in through the tube and exhale directly into the water around you (or use a second tube, and add valves...)

pickledish
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:43 am UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby pickledish » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:50 am UTC

The Earth would of expanded by 864 meters when t=1 day.This would be incorrect because the question says the radius of the world would be expanding by 1 cm per second

pickledish
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:43 am UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby pickledish » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:54 am UTC

Barstro wrote:
... Mt. Everest would ...would be taller—climbing would be more work.


Why would Mt. Everest be taller? Wouldn't it be the same height relative to the new sea level, since the earth is expanding at a constant rate?


It would be taller because we still have certain measurements of distance and the mountain is growing, too

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

pickledish wrote:The Earth would of expanded by 864 meters when t=1 day.This would be incorrect because the question says the radius of the world would be expanding by 1 cm per second

Yes, and thus after one day that radius would have expanded by 864 meters.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, that's definitely another problem with breathing through a long tube, but I suspect the pressure becomes an issue before the dead space volume when you're under water. Inhaling through even a normal-sized snorkel is noticeably more difficult if you're vertical in the water instead of horizontal on the surface, and probably becomes near impossible for most people if they go down another meter or so, even if their lung capacity is large enough to continue getting at least some fresh air through an additional meter of tubing.

That could also depend on how well you've trained your intercostal muscles. You normally don't train them much beyond their normal use (this includes divers usually using pressurised air, but not vertical snorkellers I suppose), but I don't see why you couldn't...
rmsgrey wrote:
scotty03 wrote:
Breathing in this situation would be difficult. It's hard to suck in air against the weight of the water, which is why snorkels can only work when your lungs are near the surface.

Another reason snorkels only work near the surface is that if you are deeper, you require a longer tube, creating more 'dead space' ventilation.

Our bodies already contain a degree of dead space ventilation, it is the distance from the nose/mouth to the trachea, and also includes the trachea, right and left main bronchus, and further down until you get to the alveoli that actually perform the gas exchange process. By breathing through a pipe you massively increase the dead space ventilation, and your total lung volumes aren't large enough to expel the old air and get new air in. You instead just keep breathing the same air over and over again.

Dead space ventilation has an easy fix - breath in through the tube and exhale directly into the water around you (or use a second tube, and add valves...)

But normal snorkels don't contain valves, they are merely J-shaped tubes with soft mouthpieces... What would the advantage of the second tube be over dumping your respiratory waste into the water?

syrinxsean
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: GPS messed up?

Postby syrinxsean » Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Because GPS works by measuring distance to multiple satellites concurrently, and having precise ephemerides for each SV, thereby calculating position by solving the n-dimensional matrix for distance of each satellite. If the ephemerides are borked, so is GPS.

Sure, but the satellite orbits aren't changing (at least, until they fall from orbit). The ephemerides shouldn't change just because the surface of the earth is getting closer. Unless the ephemerides are defined with respect to the surface, rather than the center of the earth, I don't see why an increase in the radius of the earth would map to anything other than just the appearance (GPS-wise) of increasing in altitude.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: GPS messed up?

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:34 pm UTC

syrinxsean wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Because GPS works by measuring distance to multiple satellites concurrently, and having precise ephemerides for each SV, thereby calculating position by solving the n-dimensional matrix for distance of each satellite. If the ephemerides are borked, so is GPS.

Sure, but the satellite orbits aren't changing (at least, until they fall from orbit). The ephemerides shouldn't change just because the surface of the earth is getting closer. Unless the ephemerides are defined with respect to the surface, rather than the center of the earth, I don't see why an increase in the radius of the earth would map to anything other than just the appearance (GPS-wise) of increasing in altitude.


No, the orbits would be changing, because the orbit is partially dependent on the mass of the body that is being orbited. Since the earth in this What-If is increasing in mass (expanding while maintaining the same density), the orbits are changing.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:44 pm UTC

After a day, Earth's mass would increase by about 0.04%, which means the radius of a stable circular orbit at a particular speed would decrease by the same amount. For GPS satellites, this is a decrease of about 11km, plus the fact that the surface is itself almosy 1km higher. And because it takes less time to go around the shorter orbit, there's a horizontal error introduced as well.

I'd say a discrepancy of several km is absolutely a significant decrease in functionality.

Edit: And it's actually worse than that, because the horizontal error is cumulative. After 1 day, the period is 0.04% shorter, which at the satellite's distance and speed means 68km off after one revolution, or 16km along the ground. There are two orbits per day, so the error is 32km per day or 1.35km/h. This is a cumulative drift for each satellite, and admittedly they'd be drifting in different directions so some of the error might cancel out, but I think it's still reasonable to say the system as a whole would be essentially useless after a few hours.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Intropy
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:31 am UTC

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby Intropy » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:21 am UTC

The discussion here was predicated on "composition of rock" meaning "density of the Earth," while I took it to mean that the locations of the materials in the Earth remain what they are. In this scenario an expansion of the Earth's radius does not imply an increase in mass but rather a decrease in density. This would yield completely different results. It's also marginally less magical since there's no creation of mass or angular momentum like in the version discussed.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26724
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0067: "Expanding Earth"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:13 pm UTC

Except, the original question asked about weight gain, which requires the increasing mass interpretation.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests