[RD]

Just a thought...

As the Earth is mostly fluid, (only the crust and inner core are solid), wouldn't the equatorial bulge disappear if the earth stopped rotating ?, i.e. wouldn't the earth change from an oblate spheroid to a sphere without the centrifugal force caused by rotation ?.

[niall]

That's exactly what I was trying to say RD! That's my point - and because of this the Earth is less dense below your feet at the equator so you can have more distance between you and the middle of the Earth but the same mass so less graviatational pull. As everyone else has pointed out there is also a centrafugal force that acts against the gravity. These two add up to less gravity at the equator, surely, end of discussion...

Sorry sophiecentaur, I didn't realise we were allowed to smack css down so hard - I was trying to be diplomatic! He's obviously got some of you pretty riled and it sound like this question has been posted before and the answer disputed?

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

I'm bored to the core myself. I'll leave you all to your laughable tittle-tattle and publish a scientific paper instead. Bye. It's been fun.

[lyner]

niall
Enough's enough at times and css keeps coming back for more. I would never start off so hard with someone who is merely 'misguided'.

I am not sure where you're going with the idea about density being lower near the equator. Are you suggesting this is because of centrifugal force, pressure or what?
I have been trying to relate this to the possible differences in 'depth' of the Oceans over the Earth's surface.

c.s.s.
I look forward to the 'Scientific Paper'. If it were kept to the length of a short paragraph, it could find a place in the Beano, possibly.

[LeeE]

I'm bored to the core myself. I'll leave you all to your laughable tittle-tattle and publish a scientific paper instead. Bye. It's been fun.

Goodbye.

[Bored chemist]

I'm bored to the core myself. I'll leave you all to your laughable tittle-tattle and publish a scientific paper instead. Bye. It's been fun.

My guess is that that post will be wrong on all 4 counts.

[niall]

OK - sure, centrafugal force is greater at the equator and this acts in the opposite direction to weight (centrafugal not centrapetal, right?) I totally accept that. One anal point I would make is that this (technically) doesn't affect the gravitational force - the gravity is still there its just the cetrafugal force acts in the opposite direction i.e. you weigh less.
But the spin of the Earth will make it squat because of this, like spinning a balloon full of water. The gravitational pull of the sun and moon distort the shape of the Earth and give actual solid ground tides of ~20cm. So what I'm saying is that the Earth is a lot more pliable than we think...
Just had a thought. If you spin a water balloon it isn't less dense at the "equator" is it. It just squashes down and redistributes its mass...hmm curios. I guess I didn't have it quite right before. It may be less dense at the equator but probably not. But (as I think a lot of you have said, just differently...
If you shrank the Earth  down to the size of a football, keeping the same mass, and then stood in space where the old equator used to be and where the old north pole used to be, you'd be closer to the foorball at the north pole so gravity would be greater.

[lyner]

Given a few hundred million years and a steady force acting on it, even the stiff old Lithosphere will move eventually. The stuff underneath behaves like a liquid - convection currents are constantly sloshing material around.
The present shape is the 'equilibrium condition' with the gravitational  imbalance being equal to the rotational force. It shouldn't be too hard to work it out - if I could be **sed.