A strange question.......

killemaces · Post by **killemaces** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:23 pm

Imagine that you could drill a hole straight thru the earth from the north pole too the south pole.

Then drop a sphere from the north pole, and what would happen to the sphere?

Then drop a sphere from the south pole, what would happen to the sphere?

Does it stop falling????????????????????

erick · Post by **erick** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:06 pm

It would be totally and utterly crushed and incenerated by the ever-increasing gravitational pull as it got closer and closer to the core. Let's say for argument's sake that the sphere is indestructable. If that were the case it would fall until it hit the absolute center of the sphere that is the Earth and stay there. IOW not continue falling to China.

jonnynet · Post by **jonnynet** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:33 pm

IMO too the sphere would come to a stop in the earth's center but on the way to there it should decrease its speed. Near to the center the sphere might almost hover. Why I do not think about acceleration? Because the sphere will be more and more surrounded by the mass of the earth, that should cause reduction of gravity force.

arjay30 · Post by **arjay30** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:39 pm

I saw that on the discovery channel it would fall accelerateing till it passed the center of the earth then it would decelerate till it got to the top of the hole on the other side then come back just like a pendulum. and i dont think it would get crushed the air pressure would get higher but its not like you have miles of water over you.

killemaces · Post by **killemaces** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:43 pm

Is it the earth mass or is it the speed that rules this principle?
Or something else?
What about the air in the previous scenario, wouldnt everything drop into to center?

erick · Post by **erick** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:46 pm

As I've been saying in the thread regarding centrifugal force it's a combination of the mass and velocity of the Earth as it moves through space. These two things combine to create a gravitational field (because as mass accelerates it creates a gulf in space/time, what we refer to as gravity).

Now about the air pressure etc.: Now that's an interesting question... I'm not sure what would happen in that scenario...

arjay30 · Post by **arjay30** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:48 pm

but now that i think about it if there was air in the hole it would accelerate till it hit terminal velocity and would not have the speed to make it to the top on the other side but would ocalate untill drag brougt it to a stop.

erick · Post by **erick** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:50 pm

I'm thinking that the gravitational pressure would be so great that it would cause a series of fusion reactions forming heavier elements similar to what occurs within the sun. That is pure speculation on my part though...

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:08 pm

Edit.

arjay30 · Post by **arjay30** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:06 am

a gravity train
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQjMslFutc

The Gravity Express
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=696

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:34 am

erick wrote:As I've been saying in the thread regarding centrifugal force it's a combination of the mass and velocity of the Earth as it moves through space. These two things combine to create a gravitational field (because as mass accelerates it creates a gulf in space/time, what we refer to as gravity).

Now about the air pressure etc.: Now that's an interesting question... I'm not sure what would happen in that scenario...

Erick - you state things as though they are facts, but they are just theories you are propagating here.

Do you really believe that gravity is a function of mass & velocity? I doubt that many thinking people share this belief ...

Newton demonstrated that the attraction of two masses is proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Nothing about velocity in this equation.

Are you suggesting that a stationary mass is less attracted to earth than a moving or rotating mass? In my experience, it's the exact opposite - if anything.

For example - when you ride a bike, at very slow speeds a bike is unstable and very easy to push over. At higher speeds, it because very difficult to unbalance - there seems to be a strong force holding the bike upwards ... much like a gyroscope, except this works with linear motion ...

Your theory is interesting - but we need better proof to be able to consider this ...

erick · Post by **erick** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:17 pm

Erick - you state things as though they are facts, but they are just theories you are propagating here.

Do you really believe that gravity is a function of mass & velocity? I doubt that many thinking people share this belief ...

Newton demonstrated that the attraction of two masses is proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Nothing about velocity in this equation.

No, they are facts, fool. As I have pointed out several times over now both General Relativity as well as Special Relativity HAVE BEEN PROVEN! I have cited actual sources where as you have nothing other than your deranged OPINION. Many thinking people including the vast majority of physicists, mathmeticians and scientists agree that mass energy equivalency, also known as E=MC2 is in fact the cause of gravity. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove the work of thousands of scientists doing millions of experiments over the course of over 100 years wrong.

Mass, energy equivalency in no way contradicts Newton's laws. In fact it dovetails quite nicely with them. Perhaps you should do some research on the subject before you open your mouth and sound like an idiot.

agor95 · Post by **agor95** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:42 pm

Erick is right equivalency is in fact the cause of gravity :-)

greendoor you are a fool for not knowing that or are you ;-)

agor95 · Post by **agor95** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:22 pm

Killemaces

I have been enjoying your thread as it is good to look at this topic.

When reading some SF books the idea that there is no gravity effects at the center of the earth, great pressure and heat, but no gravity.

Gravity reduces as you fall down the tunnel.

Theories do exist and they are great at modeling the effects we see, but a theory is only true or fact until it is proved wrong.

Newton's laws are proved wrong near the speed of light.

Special Relativity may be proved wrong in some regards in the future.

Special Relativity has been proven to predict events better than anything other theory. Is a theory a fact of a model of reality.

IMHO reality has more to it than a theory can describe.

erick · Post by **erick** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:29 pm

"IMHO reality has more to it than a theory can describe."

I agree. When you look into what we have discovered about the Universe throughout the course of humanity it becomes clear that what we call "reality" is not really real at all, it is only the product of our perception and what we can and cannot percieve. That becomes what we define as reality...

BesslerWheel.com

A strange question.......

A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......

re: A strange question.......