Mass. . . . . same at the poles as it is at the equator.
Weight . . . more at the poles
Cost . . . . . more at the poles
I would say that buying sugar at the equator is more profitable as gravitational pull is less at the equator (you can say almost zero) as compared to the poles (where the gravitational pull is the highest) , so sugar will weigh more at the poles than at the equator. Therefore, we can say that the price of sugar will be more at the poles than at the equator. The sugar will WEIGH less at the equator , so the price will also be less there. Hence, buying sugar at the equator is more profitable.NOTE: SUGAR WILL HAVE SAME MASS AT THE EQUATOR AS WELL AS AT THE POLES.====================================Beautiful. But, since the sell-price of anything reflects both the cost of producing it AND the cost of transporting it to market, have you considered the cost of shipping sugar to the equator from where it grows, compared to the cost of shipping sugar to the poles from where it grows ? When I worked briefly in an industrial complex in northern Alaska ten years ago, the price of a gallon of gasoline there was already over $6 .By the way ... before I go ... the force of gravity at the poles is not "almost zero", and the apparent weight of an object at the pole compared to its weight at the equator is greater on only the order of 1 percent, on account of both the greater radius and the effect of Earth's rotation at the equator.
It is more COLDER in the POLES and it is more WARMER by the EQUATOR.So therefore the temperature by the equator is warmer and the temperature by the poles is much colder.
Yes, there is more centrifugal force near the equator than at the poles of the earth.
NPP decreases from the equator to the poles as a result of the amount of solar radiation available. Therefore, NPP is more at the equator.
Near the Equator. It doesn't rain at the poles, and snowfall is almost non-existent at the South Pole.
I would say that buying sugar at the equator is more profitable as gravitational pull is less at the equator (you can say almost zero) as compared to the poles (where the gravitational pull is the highest) , so sugar will weigh more at the poles than at the equator. Therefore, we can say that the price of sugar will be more at the poles than at the equator. The sugar will WEIGH less at the equator , so the price will also be less there. Hence, buying sugar at the equator is more profitable.NOTE: SUGAR WILL HAVE SAME MASS AT THE EQUATOR AS WELL AS AT THE POLES.====================================Beautiful. But, since the sell-price of anything reflects both the cost of producing it AND the cost of transporting it to market, have you considered the cost of shipping sugar to the equator from where it grows, compared to the cost of shipping sugar to the poles from where it grows ? When I worked briefly in an industrial complex in northern Alaska ten years ago, the price of a gallon of gasoline there was already over $6 .By the way ... before I go ... the force of gravity at the poles is not "almost zero", and the apparent weight of an object at the pole compared to its weight at the equator is greater on only the order of 1 percent, on account of both the greater radius and the effect of Earth's rotation at the equator.
It is more COLDER in the POLES and it is more WARMER by the EQUATOR.So therefore the temperature by the equator is warmer and the temperature by the poles is much colder.
there is more precipitation near the equator..
Yes, there is more centrifugal force near the equator than at the poles of the earth.
NPP decreases from the equator to the poles as a result of the amount of solar radiation available. Therefore, NPP is more at the equator.
Near the Equator. It doesn't rain at the poles, and snowfall is almost non-existent at the South Pole.
They don't. The equator receives more solar energy per area unit than the poles do.
The energy that reaches the equator is more intense than the energy that strikes poles
The energy that reaches the equator is more intense than the energy that strikes poles
The poles receive less solar energy then the equator does because the radiation from the sun has to pass through much more atmosphere to reach the poles than to reach the equator. During that transit, more of the energy is scattered on the path to the poles, and less reaches the ground there.
The bulging Earth has more surface "gravity" at its equator.
c. sunlight falls in a more vertical position at the equator than near the poles.