Posted on 02/10/2005 10:59:13 AM PST by vannrox
Nice. I just remember the B&R got the contract because of contacts with Johnson.
I don't recall a name being given it. Just something I picked up in my astro days.
Think of all the mouths this money could feed.
Doesn't Einstein's description of gravity as a curvature effect of space-time also have to be considered? Are you saying that the curvature of space-time is apparent all through the thickness of this sphere, but becomes completely flat everywhere inside the hollow sphere?
What if I said that the curvature is centered on the center of mass, which is the center point of the hollow sphere, therefore gravity effects would continue upon a falling body all the way to the very center? At which point the object would become "weightless" but would be under crushing pressure as every point not exactly at the very center would be under the maximum space-time curvature effects. A human would likely be squashed to a tiny little ball of goo, in other words.
Well, it ain't hollow, so actually, you are all just wasting keystrokes.
The core of the Earth is the remains of a star.
The star goes supernova, eventually collapses into a neutron star with the attendant black hole.
Sooner or later, the star cools and expands, due to accretion of materials it has pulled in with it's gravity (which is a function of electromagnetic type forces still not understood, created by the energy source of the burning engine of the star).
The star loses it's black hole at an early stage in it's expansion.
If it has accrued enough matter, and doesn't expand too fast, it's rate of growth slows, and material continues to pile up, building a shell, or containment field, for the inner stellar furnace.
The EM type field emitted by the inner core is what causes the astral body to spin.
The solidified, cooled outer shell becomes the surface of a livable planet, with the inner furnace which generates beneficial EM and other type fields (Van Allen radiation belts), causes spin, solar inclination, gravity, generates ozone, and makes life possible.
All cold, all hot, no life. Center hot, outside cool, life. Star core= Shields up. The 'fields' provide protection from the harmful(to us) emissions in the EM spectrum.
This star cored shell, a life bearing planet, is similar to the creature you are made up of.
A Eukaryote, a cell with an internal engine/furnace.
Or, to qoute a famous source, "As Above(the heavens), So Below."
this is not a good idea. period. paragraph. end of story.
this is a joke reply, yes?
What do you do about the Balrog?
And for once it isn't one of mine, the fates smile upon me today.
I just send Freepmail when there's a problem.
We can pitch a wizard down the hole with a sword, just in case.
We can pitch a wizard down the hole with a sword, just in case.
Can you, in about the same length of reply, prove this theory wrong?
no, but I can succinctly condemn it as a very bad idea.
Yes, just like a round Earth, and sun centered solar system were bad ideas.
no, more like "wow, what does THIS button do?" bad idea
oh, you are referring to your "stellar core" concept.
easy enough to refute:
1. earth has insufficient mass for its core to be the remnant of a star.
2. the planets are all a bit to closely packed to allow for each to be such remnants.
I think you mixed up two things:
the well-supported theory that all elements heavier than 6 on the PToE are generated in stars, and all heavier than [Fe] are generated in novas/supernovas in a much earlier star generation cycle of the universe, and that our system formed from accretion of the dust of those dead stars
-and-
your own misconstruction of geology.
Oh, I have to agree with you 100%.
Attempting to drill a hole to the center of the Earth is a very, very, bad idea. At least in the way being discussed.
Droppping nukes into continental shelf overlaps, would be like playing russian roulette on a worldwide scale.
Easier than the concept of a hollow earth?
1. earth has insufficient mass for its core to be the remnant of a star.
I see. And exactly how much mass does a star have, that has undergone collapse to a neutron star (with unimaginable density), and then grown back ?
2. the planets are all a bit to closely packed to allow for each to be such remnants.
First, not all planets are life-bearing types.
Second, what law of the universe would keep such remnants from ending up packed 'a bit too closely' , and being the constituents of a solar system?
It is not from lack, as I can assure you there are more stars 'in the sky' than there are planets that foster life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.