According to the Christian Science Monitor, the uneven mass distribution on Earth means Gravity has different magnitudes in different places. The earthquake was strong enough to produce a measurable difference because it thinned out the crust around Japan.
The researchers found the Tohoku-Oki quake reduced the gravity field there by an average of two- millionths of a gal by slightly thinning the Earth’s crust. In comparison, the strength of the gravitational pull at the Earth’s surface is, on average, 980 gals. (The gal, short for Galileo, is a unit of acceleration; one gal is defined as one centimeter per second squared.)
That may be a small amount, but still, affecting Gravity at all is insane. [CS Monitor]
Note: Headline originally read “Japan Earthquake Weakened Earth’s Gravity” which, as Bob points out, is a little misleading. The article itself explains the Japan localisation, and the headline has been updated to reflect this. Meanwhile Bob (and all readers) — we’re happy for you to point out stuff like that. Just please don’t be a dick about it.
Bob
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 8:00 AM“The Japan Earthquake Weakened Earth’s Gravity”
No, it didn’t. It redistributed some mass, leading to a relative weakening the LOCAL gravity of JAPAN.
chuck
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 7:11 PMAlright Professor High-Horse :P
Sean Robert Meaney
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 8:36 AMonce we start accepting the fact that time is irrelevent the thing separating the old gravity from the new gravity must be a string.
Bob
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 12:49 PMTypical scumbaggery from Giz, Modifying and deleting half my comment without acknowledging it at all.
Bob
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 2:24 PMI’ll make you a deal, I’ll stop being a “dick” when the people who write for this site show some bloody integrity.
This place has gone woefully and constantly downhill in the last 2 years or so as it chases sensationalist BS, widly off topic garbage and flat out SMUT as it blindly chases “clicks” and “page impressions”.
I was going to simply stop reading, but instead I think I’ll stick around and remind you about how YOU are being “dicks” to your loyal visitors.
Danny Allen
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 8:06 PMHi Bob,
Let me set the record straight here.
1. 100% agree you were correct about the headline. Thank you for pointing it out.
2. I also agree that there’s a lot of room for improvement. Part of my improvement focus (I’ve been publisher for less than a month) not only centres on technical accuracy of posts (as you’ve kindly pointed out), but also on the tone of comments.
We’re after on-topic, constructive comments, not trolling, snide remarks, vitriolic or dickish rants. Your orignal comment was fine, except for the last line which was, in my opinion, unnecessary (and something you’ve posted time and time again). Regular readers like yourself know there’s a forum for such conversation — Whitenoise: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/10/whitenoise-gizmodo-community-talkback-14/
3. I personally welcome critisism, especially from (as you say, loyal readers) and I’m even happy to give you my personal email address. All I’m asking you, or any reader to do, is to be articulate and constructive. Your concerns re “smut” are well-thought out, and have been taken on board. I encourage you to place any further concerns you have on Whitenoise.
4. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I hope this sets the record straight. And if, at the end of the day, Giz has over the last 2 years become something you’re not a fan of, sorry to hear. We each make personal choices. Mine is to set about improving the site in my new role, and listening to concerns such as yours.
Cheers,
Danny Allen
Publisher.
Ben
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 10:40 PMDanny what a great response. I am a firm believer in being part of change rather than just pointing out errors. Please keep up the good work. I like to read Gizmodo and enjoy the comments and discussions – and hey we all get things wrong, easy to just point it out and move on… IMHO at least :)
Brett
Monday, October 10, 2011 at 5:09 PMgo danny boy!
I for one am an avid reader of Gizmodo and disagree with Bob. I like Bob’s podantic nature (I myself have a tendancy to lean towards the detail) but perhaps his or her execution needs a little work (something to think about in the future Bob)
good on ya Giz, well handled