handline said...

By mining materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere ,are we making the earth lighter,and so changing its axix..Could this be why the climate is changing..if it is?

Matter is neather created nor destroyed, simply rearranged.

Could mining half of WA and shifting that weight somewhere else contribute to axis movement? Yes!

most of the earth is covered in water so wouldn't it sort of self-correct any shifted weight?

ROFL... You guys are funny.

Isostasy - we'll float... but...

Just say the earth has a radius of around 6371 km, give or take, and the continental crust has a thickness of (say) 30 km to 50 km, give or take... and an area of 2 km by 0.5 km by 0.2 km (deep) is mined... and 50% of that material is exported, the remainder is not... oh... I lost my point in waffle... oh yeah, it is so insignificant, that even if it did make a difference, we'd float!

Every year Earth gains about the weight of two aircraft carriers landing on it. 40,000 tonnes-worth of debris lands on Earth. You can demonstrate this for yourself. If you put a big plastic sheet or a white sheet on your grass in the garden on a nice day, leave it for a few hours and then run a magnet over it. You can often find specks have just fallen down from outer space and landed on your magnet. Debris, dust and other stuff raining in from space contributes a huge amount of weight to the Earth every single year.

Yes, we do gain weight.

**** ,,bad residue,look tooo many people on earth at moment//

Underoath said...
Could mining half of WA and shifting that weight somewhere else contribute to axis movement? Yes!

Nah.

Whatever Rineheart takes out of the ground is about equal to what goes on her waistline.

^^^ I think I scored some too

clive lost 20kg.of ****

My axis changes over winter as I gain weight.

Yeah it's all got to do with Ferals Law, higher densities away from the poles.

Mark _australia said...

Underoath said...
Could mining half of WA and shifting that weight somewhere else contribute to axis movement? Yes!

Nah.

Whatever Rineheart takes out of the ground is about equal to what goes on her waistline.

I suggest to send Gina to the moon. Anyway she should be able to buy a tickets for her and take few immigrant workers with her.
Then she could start digging over there.
No need to mention that she will be light again. At lease six times lighter

handline said...

By mining materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere ,are we making the earth lighter,and so changing its axix..Could this be why the climate is changing..if it is?

Who said things get lighter when they are burnt?

FormulaNova said...

handline said...

By mining materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere ,are we making the earth lighter,and so changing its axix..Could this be why the climate is changing..if it is?

Who said things get lighter when they are burnt?

OK, I'll say things get lighter when they are burnt.

Einstein first figured that out with his famous E = mc^2 equation. That equation is usually just applied to breaking those stupendously strong nuclear bonds. But the answer you get is equivalent to doing it the old fashioned way. Energy or work = force times distance. If you calculate the work needed to get those positively charged protons so close together to be latched by nuclear forces, and then you find how much heavier the before and after elements are - you find E=mc^2 is just a different way of getting the same answer.

So a set mouse trap is very slightly heavier than a sprung one. A charged battery is heavier than a flat one. Burnt mining products are lighter than unburnt ones.

But for everyday things the mass changes by so little that it's impractical to use this method to find the energy release. Force times distance or volts times amps is the easier way of doing it.

Ian K said...

FormulaNova said...

handline said...

By mining materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere ,are we making the earth lighter,and so changing its axix..Could this be why the climate is changing..if it is?

Who said things get lighter when they are burnt?

OK, I'll say things get lighter when they are burnt.

Einstein first figured that out with his famous E = mc^2 equation. That equation is usually just applied to breaking those stupendously strong nuclear bonds. But the answer you get is equivalent to doing it the old fashioned way. Energy or work = force times distance. If you calculate the work needed to get those positively charged protons so close together to be latched by nuclear forces, and then you find how much heavier the before and after elements are - you find E=mc^2 is just a different way of getting the same answer.

So a set mouse trap is very slightly heavier than a sprung one. A charged battery is heavier than a flat one. Burnt mining products are lighter than unburnt ones.

But for everyday things the mass changes by so little that it's impractical to use this method to find the energy release. Force times distance or volts times amps is the easier way of doing it.

So, when we burn something, are we adding mass or losing mass?

When we combine something with oxygen, doesn't it get heavier?

FormulaNova said...

So, when we burn something, are we adding mass or losing mass?

When we combine something with oxygen, doesn't it get heavier?

I'd say the energy, E, released as heat and radiation, as a mini chemical rather than a nuke mushroom cloud , would lead to a reduction in mass of the combustion products by E/(c^2)

This is my understanding from the popular science novel "E = mc^2" by David Bodanis. My sister gave the book to me years ago but it's still available in departure terminal bookshops. Or you can borrow it. It's a good read.