The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Human constructions/buildings are affecting the earth's rotation..  (Read 7100 times)

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
As I have observed, though no new scientist have ever proposed this theory, or maybe some had but I have not heard of.
I think that human structures, mainly high rise building, dams, landfills, and sea reclamation areas (also includes, mineral and oil mining) are affecting the earth's rotation (or wobble) on its axis, due to their weight, being concentrated in one area makes the earth wobble. therefore they are also main contributors, to changing climates, earthquakes and other, natural phenomena.

Experiment done is with a rotating ball, a rotating ball alone has an almost perfect rotating motion, but one you apply something on the balls surface, it makes the ball wobble on its axis.

Is it due to our increasing mega-structures that the earth is doomed to fail one day? 


 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Is this a question or a statement?

Mass of the Earth: 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons. ("Earth." The World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. Chiacago: World Book Inc., 2001.)

The largest local deviations in the rocky surface of the Earth are Mount Everest (8848 m above local sea level) and the Mariana Trench (10,911 m below local sea level)

The planetary surface undergoes reshaping over geological time periods because of tectonics and erosion.

Ice ages: The weight of the ice sheets was so great that they deformed the Earth's crust and mantle.
It has been postulated that due to the decrease in sea levels and the subsequent redistribution of mass on the planet that the rotation of the Earth was faster during these times.  It has to be noted that these ideas are exactly that and are not attributable to original sources.  In other words no scientific evidence.

I find your statement very interesting but unless all the buildings in the world have been constructed using materials extracted from the same place, I don't see how the redistribution of mass would apply.  Never the less as always I have an open mind and if you could provide some more information to support your statement it would be greatly appreciated  ;D
« Last Edit: 27/06/2011 03:15:32 by Airthumbs »
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
It is both a question and a statement. I hope some real scientific studies would be made about it. Since I do not have the capacity to conduct a formal experiment, and I do not have the credentials to back-up my credibility as a scientist. This cause concerns for me because of increasing natural phenomena such as earthquakes, global warming and possible shifting of the poles.

What with the increasing high rise buildings, and the article about china's giant dam. which by the way led to some lakes drying up.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
I agree that the "mass effect" of building construction is likely negligible.  While we do transport some construction materials such as marble and granite around the world, the most common material, concrete, is generally made primarily of a rock aggregate that is usually locally quarried. 

We certainly have changed our environment in many ways that goes well beyond adding CO2 into the atmosphere. 

Even with the fossil fuels, you could think about taking about 10 billion tons of hydrocarbons and putting them in the air to produce about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year.  But, even so, much of the mining is distributed around the world.

Local environmental impacts of "progress" might include land subsidence from coal or water extraction, or even types of tunnel mining.  While sink-holes are problematic for many communities, land subsidence can become a major issue for many coastal communities.

In some cases, rivers are diverted, and often virtually dried up by agricultural usage or municipal usage. 

You mentioned dams.  It has been reported that some of the largest dams have caused local earthquakes after filling.

Dikes change river flow and soil deposition.

There is an "Urban Effect" in which cities are measurably warmer than the surrounding countryside, I believe largely due to replacing trees and grass with concrete and asphalt.  Perhaps also changing wind patterns. 

Likewise, there are concerns about forest destruction, especially in the Congo and Amazon.  Trees are often darker green, and seemingly have less albedo or reflectivity than your typical prairie grass.  But, the great forests are far more complex, and the trees in a sense manage their own micro-environment by increasing things like water evaporation, and thus changing clouds and rain patterns, and in fact creating an energy flux from surface evaporation and high altitude condensation.  Loose the trees, and you loose the forest micro-climate.

I suppose one thing people don't talk about much (at least in younger countries).
If you look around Europe at 1000 to 2000 yr old buildings.  Many of them have sunk, and are at a visible lower elevation than the surrounding land.   Think of the leaning tower of Pisa with the entry level below the level of the Piazza dei Miracoli.  Hopefully by anchoring highrise buildings to bedrock, this effect is minimized.  But, our environment is truly in constant flux.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2011 07:05:31 by CliffordK »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Do you realise just how small the effect is?

It must be true in principle, but even with things like Mt Everest and the deep sea trenches, the Earth is smoother than a billiard ball.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Any effect humans have on the distribution of the Earth's mass is negligible compared to the natural effects of upthrust and erosion, and even they have negligible impact.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
hmmmm.. you're right make. Makes sense. But the fact that you are refuting my albeit far-fetched theory makes it all the more alluring. LOL.. For you see the earth is balance by say the weight or volume of Mt. Everest in Asia, which is countered by the weight and volume of the Peruvian or the Southern american mountain range on the other side of the world. And deep sea trenches are covered by sea water, therefore they do not count. Observe how the world is balanced just the way it is. The north with the south the east with the west.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"And deep sea trenches are covered by sea water, therefore they do not count."
wrong too.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
"And deep sea trenches are covered by sea water, therefore they do not count."
wrong too.

Deep sea trenches no matter how deep are covered by sea water, therefore its weight is more or less compensated by the mass of the water covering it..
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
If you believe that then you should think the problem doesn't exist.
All mankind's works happen at the bottom of an ocean of air.

In fact the air and water are less dense than the rocks so they don't compensate for the rock's mass.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
hmmm maybe but airs density and mass does not affect land or rock mass as much as water does. You can not make the air to concentrate on a specific region of Land mass unlike water which would affect the land when you enclose it and make it concentrate on a specific place like a dam. you cannot build dams for air. right?

So therefore your argument that all mankind's work is happening at the bottom of an ocean of air is invalid. take for example a tin can. If you put that tin can at the bottom of the ocean it will collapse into itself. But on land, while it is as you say under the bottom of ocean air, that ocean of air you mention doesn't even make a dent on the tin can.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
also normally when engineers are building structures underwater they are taking into account in their calculation specific measures for compensating the weight of the water, unlike building on land which they do not worry about the effect of air's mass on the structure, except of course the horizontal force of the wind velocity.
 

Offline Wanderer50

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
I have found this forum because I also question the causes of the Earth's climatic change. I will expounding on the original question. I think that the combination of human activity and Earth cycles are at work. However I think it is the human activities of Earth mas distribution which has caused the "tilt" to be accentuated or the cycles to change duration, or both. I think this has happened through the moving of raw materials from source to use and the fact that more people equals more weight. As to population, we are contributing in metropolitan areas more than any other time. We now have gigantic construction, such as dams, that change the distribution of water and these factors the cause the Earth to go into corrective  changes to maintain it's balance.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length