Should climbing grades be lowered in certain parts of the world due to lack of gravitational force?

On a perfect sphere, the pull of gravity is exactly the same at all points on the surface. The Earth is NOT a perfect sphere which means there are certain areas on Earth that have lower gravitational pull than others. Does this mean that climbs in the low gravity areas should be lowered??? Or should grades areas with higher gravitational force be increased?

Earth's rotation produces centrifugal force, which flattens the planet and causes the radius from the equatior to the center to exceed the radius from the pole to the center. Satellite measurements have shown the Earth's equipotential surface actually has broad bumps and dimples. The image given by the sattelites is known as the Geoid.
Comparison of a Geoid map to a seismic tomography map suggests that the broad bumps and dimples of the Geoid are due to upwelling and downwelling associated with the convection in the mantle. Therefore, warmer mantle rocks are less dense and exert less gravitatioinal pull and vice versa for cooler rocks.

So what do you think? Should we lower climbing grades in the areas with less gravitational pull and increase grades where gravity's pull is higher.

Areas with low gravitational pull:

1.)West Coast of United States (Baja to Central Oregon...yes this includes Yosemite.)

2.) Michigan, Northern Wisconsin, and Northern Minnesota.

3.) Northeastern New York to Baffin Bay

4.) Newfoundland

5.) Central to Southern India

6.) Southwest Australia along southern coast to Darwin.

7.) Thailand

8.) Parts of China and Russia

9.) Central Africa

Areas with high gravitational pull:

1.) US Rockies (Stretching from Montana to Colorado.)

2.) Rocklands, South Africa

3.) Southern Europe

4.) Chile/Argentina (Andes)

5.) Himalayas

6.) Indonesia

7.) Japan

An equipotential surface is in reference to the earth's gravitational field. The Geoid refers to the actual physical shape of the earth. Those are quite difference concepts. Also, The variation of gravitational force between the strongest and the weakest on the surface of the earth is less than 0.5% of the mean gravitational force on the earth's surface. As in, it doesn't matter in the slightest in regards to any human activity.

• edited to remove everything above, because I forgot Rule #1 *

Seriously?

Oh and BTW, centrifugal force isn't actually a real thing.

Well that sucks...no wonder I climb better in Wisconsin than I do in Kentucky.

EvanH wrote: * edited to remove everything above, because I forgot Rule #1 * Seriously? Oh and BTW, centrifugal force isn't actually a real thing.

Centrifugal force is clearly real, its measurable. Its just that actually analyzing it is too complicated for grade schoolers, so they pretend it isn't real. Air resistance is another "fictional" force because actually modeling it as what it is is beyond the means of most.

Agreed with Frank.

If I remember correctly from junior year physics, the difference is 9.81 m/s +/- .01 m/s. In others words, negligible on all accounts related to climbing. The further you get from the center of the Earth, the less gravity affects you (in theory more than reality.) So by that reasoning, Mt. Everest would get easier the higher you got. Obviously disregarding the lack of oxygen and the extremes in temperature and weather.

In formula it would look like this.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Weight = Mass * Gee(the acceleration due to gravity)

W= m*g
W= 60Kg*9.81m/s = 588.6 N = 588.6N/(4.448N/Lbs) = 132.329 lbs

OR

W=60Kg*9.79m/s = 587.4 N = 587.4N/(4.448N/Lbs) = 132.059 lbs

----------------------------------------------------------------

Soooo a difference of .26 Lbs in the most extreme of cases. So the 1/4 pounder you had before climbing is a bigger problem then gravity almost 99% of the time. Its a difference of only .19%, carefully picking what you put on your rack would be a much better use of your time :)

holy cow I love this title; outside the box.

I certainly think a data set to try and disprove your hypothsis is worth exploring here.

another btw, O2 is a constant.

and did some yahoo try and disprove gravity; obviously a crock, I still can't climb worth a crap.

Brian Scoggins wrote: Centrifugal force is clearly real, its measurable. Its just that actually analyzing it is too complicated for grade schoolers, so they pretend it isn't real. Air resistance is another "fictional" force because actually modeling it as what it is is beyond the means of most.

Fair enough. I will be sure to let my physics professor know he's been hoodwinked.

Of course, he might argue that "centrifugal force" is actually a term used to describe the reaction force that corresponds to centripetal force (an actual resultant force vector) or, occasionally, an inertial force in a non-inertial reference frame. I will then triumphantly produce that very xkcd comic and shock him into silence.

EvanH wrote: Fair enough. I will be sure to let my physics professor know he's been hoodwinked. Of course, he might argue that "centrifugal force" is actually a term used to describe the reaction force that corresponds to centripetal force (an actual resultant force vector) or, occasionally, an inertial force in a non-inertial reference frame. I will then triumphantly produce that very xkcd comic and shock him into silence.

No, his (hypothetical) response is exactly what I described. He's got the means to describe the force (which is clearly there) as a side-effect of a non-inertial frame.

Unless you're telling me that my professors (for grad level physics) are wrong.

Centripetal force is a force pushing towards the center. In the diagram this would kill "Mr. Bond." He would be crushed by the force of the ring around him.

As for centrifugal force, it is merely a term, NOT a true force. The object in a Centrifuge only wants to travel in a straight line, the acceleration of the ring prevents that, causing the object to move outwards. Centrifugal force is only a term given to this particular instance of an object demonstrating the properties of inertia.

Conor Raney wrote:Areas with high gravitational pull: 5.) Himalayas

Gravity decreases with altitude, to the tune of a staggering 0.3% decrease at 29,000 feet. See? Don't listen to those self-aggrandizing high-altitude alpinists - any physist worth a damn can prove that climbing gets easier the higher you go. It's science.

EvanH wrote:Fair enough. I will be sure to let my physics professor know he's been hoodwinked.

Brian Scoggins wrote:Unless you're telling me that my professors (for grad level physics) are wrong.

"Yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!"

It is a fictious force, which is just as much a "real thing" as any other force. You are both right, and you are both wrong, and furthermore, you are just embarassing yourselves by having a pissing match over whose physics professor is more qualified than the other. Care to bust out your GRE scores next? That should settle it.

Chris Drover wrote: Gravity decreases with altitude, to the tune of a staggering 0.3% decrease at 29,000 feet. See? Don't listen to those self-aggrandizing high-altitude alpinists - any physist worth a damn can prove that climbing gets easier the higher you go. It's science. "Yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!" It is a fictious force, which is just as much a "real thing" as any other force. You are both right, and you are both wrong, and furthermore, you are just embarassing yourselves by having a pissing match over whose physics professor is more qualified than the other. Care to bust out your GRE scores next? That should settle it.

Now that would really be embarrassing...

/did not do well on the GRE, which is why I'm only a master's student.

No wonder I can't climb anything above a 5.9 on lead here in Utah. It all makes sense now

Humor and banter from smart guys....only from group of climbers. I love this site.

Gravitational forces don't matter. A 5.15 on earth would be rated maybe 5.9 on the moon, because ratings are based on how hard the climb feels compared to other climbs. It's subjective.

BUT! If I have twice as much mass as my buddy, when I go to a place with higher gravitational field, my weight increases twice as much as my buddy's! So, if you're a fat guy and moving around a lot, climb climbs that were rated by a fat guy.

What should be taken into account is how hardcore the local scene is as a party town. Lots of late-night fall-down drunken binges, kick the grades up a couple letters. Engineering school nearby with a bunch of nerdy physicists, you know everyone is on their game (unless they've stayed up till 2 studying simple Newtonian physics), might warrant a drop of a letter or two.

Another thought--- if I'm anemic and climbing a wall facing south, is it harder than it would be if I were someone with lots of iron in their blood?

So, does that mean I weigh less when climbing in Yosemite and can therefore get more chicks?

I love reading everyone's response. But what if that .19% is the difference between a send and a fall? Or the extra .19% between getting the hold just past the crux? But I agree Brendan, much more useful to look at your rack than to carry around a map telling you where gravitational forces have a stronger pull. I just was reading through my geology book and of course as a climber...I related EVERYTHING to climbing. It is an interesting topic!

Eric Krantz wrote:Gravitational forces don't matter. A 5.15 on earth would be rated maybe 5.9 on the moon, because ratings are based on how hard the climb feels compared to other climbs. It's subjective.

It's a good point that would seem to refute the OP's hypothesis. But more variables make reality more complex.

Since grades are subjective, the climber's ability, fitness, and inborn gifts factor into how hard a climb feels. Many of Yosemite's pioneers were students at Berkeley or Stanford compared, say, to the inbred yokels and farm boys that established places like the Gunks, Devil's Lake, or Castlewood Canyon. The California boys' superior gifts would make objectively hard moves feel easier. So we clearly cannot conclude Valley grades are inflated.

But "fitness" includes how one is feeling at the time one climbs. The Berkeley and Stanford climbers did most their stuff on weekends, generally hung over, strung out, and underslept from all the elite college parties Friday night. In contrast the inbred yokels and farm boys in the upper Midwest and upstate New York came from hardy Puritan and Lutheran stock. Climbing with clean hands and pure hearts made their fitness higher and feel of relative difficulty lower. So we clearly cannot conclude the grades at the Gunks or Devil's Lake are inflated.

I'm just getting started! But those examples should be enough to illustrate why Eric's point about subjectivity canceling out local differences is right, but grossly oversimplified.

This post also tells us much about Conor Raney. He's a proto-progressive Marxist central planner. But the climbing community is a decentralized, diverse, self governing community that values Burkean conservative tradition, accumulated local wisdom and federalism, contrary to its reputation and the views of a few vocal exceptions like Bob D, Allen Hill, and Fat Dad. Why, Eric Krantz himself thinks he's liberal. But when a real commmie comes along and tries to throw out the wisdom of generations of climbers, and replace it with one central formula to rationalize and control everything, Krantz' natural conservatism kicks in. He defends traditional ways and local control, and refutes pseudo intellectual tyranny. There's hope for the next generation!

• A sad footnote includes this biological and genetic observation: The mix of dominant and recessive traits in EvanH's phenotype clearly indicate literalism is expressed, while irony/humor/sarcasm are dormant.

+1 Shawn!

GREAT QUESTION

The quick answer is no, because climbing grades are relative not absolute.

For sports in which athletic achievements are measured against a universal standard, such as weight lifting or high jumping, there would need to be adjustments for different environments (low gravity or higher air pressure for instance) since the environment will make it easier or harder to achieve a given standard.

However, the difficulty of a climb inherently incorporates the conditions of the local environment. A climb is rated based on how difficult it feels, which includes the local gravitational strength at the climb’s location. If a climb in California (low gravity) was exactly replicated in Colorado (high gravity) then the Colorado climb would warrant a higher rating because it felt harder. Similarly, exact replicas of climbs in which single variable is changed would also warrant different ratings. As other examples consider making a climb steeper, the rock more slippery, or even located at a higher elevation where the climber had less endurance. In each of these instances the climb would feel harder and have a higher rating.

After thinking over all the math, I believe this simply comes down to the "deal with it" principal. If a runner from New England were to be in the Olympics at Salt Lake City, they wouldn't be given any bonus because they're used to the air at sea level, rather than somewhere around 6000' above sea level. The difference is obviously minimal beyond anything other factors in climbing, so it's not worth the effort to create a standard. You'd have much better self esteem if you were to fix all the sandbagged routes in the world first.