So I was in the shower today...

[SJ Zero]

It is then alarming to me that people have assumed that the core of the earth is a superhot heavy solid. Would it not be more logical to predict that it would be a super COLD light GAS instead? That would make all that magma above it actually make a lot more sense...

Not at all. The pressure at the center of the earth is incredibly high because there's a planet on top of it, the fluid is forced to become a solid.

The same idea is taken advantage when a valve is physically placed at a lower elevation to eliminate flashing and cavitation -- the lower elevation increases the pressure head, which lowers the temperature at which the liquid moving through the pipe turns to gas, eliminating cavitation.

[Rattrapmax6]

Given it is big enough, let's say the size of Earth, gravity would actually be centered all along the "crust" instead of in the center. Anything originating in the center of the sphere "falls" down to the crust. Clearly you can only use individual particles, instead of the entire mass, to explain this behavior ...

Yeah, that was basicaly what I was trying to explian.. If there is no mass there (and it would have to lack it if you could posision something there), then gravity can't draw anything into the center... The only remaining gravity is drawn by the outer shell given in your example... though, if the draw is equal in all directions, it might simulate a weigthless environment....

[aetherfox]

Aga: I was saying it was American of you to point out the difference in spelling, not the way you did it.

In my example with the drill, the gravitational pull increases indefinately as you approach the COM of Earth.

In this scenario, you don't just simply "plug in" the numbers into the formula. You have to take the limit as the radius approaches by zero. As a result, I am right.

And Aga: to disprove your example to disprove me:
If something were in the center of your hollow sphere (it would have to get there somehow, it wouldn't come to rest there naturally unless some serious lucky throwing happened), it would sit there. The attraction from all sides would be equal. If this is -not- what you meant, let me know.

Also, Aga: Your technique for travelling faster than light is not new. Yours is a basic example of what people thought would be the first way to do it. In practice it is impossible, because we have no way to move black holes, and we aren't even imaginably close to creating an electromagnetic force generator strong enough to rip through space-time once, let alone three times.

I should further add that according to relativity, infinite energy is possible. As a mass approaches the speed of light, it's relative mass increases, approaching infinity. e=mc^2...

Dig through the archives of my site (http://www.avinashv.net/archives and there are some astrophysics articles I wrote. http://www.avinashv.net/2005/04/13/black-holes/ is probably my best, though, at a year old, it's badly written and flawed.

[anarky]

aetherfox: Perhaps infinite energy is possible... but if all particles of matter in the universe were needed to create the propulsion to that immense speed, where would one go? :wink:

Another idea I just had was about the speed limit of light. We have never EVER made anything go anywhere near that fast. Imagine the universe as a highway with no speed limits. Light travels at C. It appears to us - I re-itterate, appears - that we need infinite energy to approach C. Has this been proven? What if C was only a speed limit for light? What if matter or energy could travel faster, even though with light travelling at C, we would not detect it?

Screw E=mc^2 and whatnot for now. Imagine... perhaps it really is possible?

[aetherfox]

I believe that ftl travel is possible, so yes.

[Radical Raccoon]

It is just a theory, but there is a lot of evidence that supports it.

[Zack]

Aga:

Actually, if you look at the formula, you will realise I am right. At a distance of 0, you are dividing by zero, which is mathematically defined to be infinity.

Since the average center of mass of all these particles making up Earth is the Earth's center, I stand by my argument.

Sure, but what's strange is the gravity from the outer Earth would be pulling you and trying to average your mass equally throughout the center, whilst pressue from the incoming mass would crush and/or melt you

Infinite force is impossible, just like infinite energy, mass or acceleration. The law is F=(gm[1]m[2])/d^2, d≠0.

That's what they say...But I think the disbelief in infinite energy's just crap.

If that's the case, then something besides energy itself should be used to create it.

If you think about it, energy is infinite proportianate to the amount of mass in a particle, says E=mc2. The reaction of one amount of mass can cause enough energy to move much of it. Eventually that mass should once again slow down and reverse it's path, accelerating at such high speed a big bang would occur at the averaged center of all the mass. Repeat. The reactions shouldn't ever slow down, because they should occur with more force each time, or equal force as before.

For some reason everyone acts like it's such a big deal Einstein figured out E=mc2 though...

Let's see, measure the mass of all the objects in our reaction. *reaction happens* Measure the energy output. Measure the remaining mass...A pattern here, anyone?

WTF?
Energy is an infinite proportinate to the amount of mass in a particle? What does infinite proportionate mean? It is proportional, sure, but infinite energy violates relativity, E=mc^2 isn't all there is to it.
To be honest you wrote your paragraph very poorly, I can barely understand it. What reactions? Slow down? If you are saying that everything should be rushing into the centre of the universe because everything is bound by gravity, you would be wrong. Lots of distant superclusters are rushing AWAY from us, because the universe is expanding (and the expansion is accelerating). For objects close enough to us, we are gravitationally bound, and orbit or attraction will prevail.
For example, the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way are moving closer together and should eventually collide.

[relsoft]

Beam me up scotty! Engage!!!

[TheAdventMaster]

What does infinite proportionate mean?

Infinite, proportionate to the amount of energy in a particle. Meaning, the maximum energy output from a particle is more energy than it takes to move that particle and create more energy from other mass.

I don't care if what I say defies one law or another. The idea of any form of infinite energy probably defies tons of laws, so even mentioning the idea of infinite energy should never happen if you want to think like that. No one cares if something violates on set of rules barely proven . . .Or even proven to the extreme but almost at a breakage point.

You just study stuff and laws are rewritten/added to if you can prove them wrong. If you don't understand science enough to understand how a law could be broken, then you shouldn't argue about those laws, because they ARE and HAVE BEEN broken/expanded upon before! If we just stuck by the current laws of everything in each and every case, nothing would change, and relativity wouldn't exist. Boo ya, bitches.

This isn't the debate forum, so I really don't give a damn how poorly I wrote my paragraph. ~Fin~

[Zack]

Hahahahahahah!
So some 15-year-old comes and says that he knows better than all tried, tested and unbroken laws of physics? Sure they can be revised, but not because of your fuzzy logic. The energy in a particle, I'm assuming you mean released by nuclear fusion, is greater than that required to make the particle create more energy from another mass? Man, you aren't making any sense. Moving a particle to another mass...doesn't create energy...Sorry, you have to be more clear.
And as soon as a particle's energy is released, it is no longer available in the same form to be moved. E.g. fusing hydrogen to move that very same hydrogen is impossible, as it would then be helium.