surely if u droped through the centre of the earth u'd stop - in the middle kinda floating - cos that's where gravity pulls to - so u'd never make it out???
Ben
Ben
why?
- Thread starter Mario
- Start date
also if we pretend that gravitys still there then ud have so much energy that u wood actualy have more then what was pulling u to it, so ud go past itThe_neB said:
in that case why would you be falling in the first place - should we not all spin off into space???
and as for u're swallow question is the problem not that no-one has a large enough barrel to fire them or enough to get a crono reading
(i'm sure i spelt enough wrong but nothing else looks right either )
Ben
and as for u're swallow question is the problem not that no-one has a large enough barrel to fire them or enough to get a crono reading
(i'm sure i spelt enough wrong but nothing else looks right either
)Ben
answer from a scientist
Would you fall all the way through a theoretical hole in the earth?
T. Fowler
Snohomish, Wash.
Mark Shegelski, an associate professor of physics at the University of Northern British Columbia, explains.
The simple answer is, theoretically, yes. First, let us ignore friction, the rotation of the earth, and other complications, and focus on the case of a hole or tunnel entering the earth at one point, going straight through its center, and coming back to the surface at the opposite side of the planet. If we treat the mass distribution in the earth as uniform, one would fall into the tunnel and then come back up to the surface on the other side in a manner much like the motion of a pendulum swinging down and up again. Assuming that the journey began with zero initial speed (simply dropping into the hole), your speed would increase and reach a maximum at the center of the earth, and then decrease until you reached the surface, at which point the speed would again be zero. The gravitational force exerted on the traveler would be proportional to his distance from the center of the earth: it's at a maximum at the surface and zero at the center. The total time required for this trip would be about 42 minutes. The speed of our traveler at the center of the Earth would be 7,900 meters a second. If there were no friction, there would be no energy loss so our traveler could oscillate into and out of the tunnel.
This trip could not take place in the real world for a number of reasons, including the implausibility of building a tunnel 12,756 kilometers long, displacing all of the material in the tunnel's proposed path, and having the tunnel go through both the earth's molten outer core and its inner core, where the temperature is about 6,000 degrees! It would be much easier to build such a tunnel in a small asteroid. Interestingly enough, for a tunnel that reaches from one point to another point on the earth's surface but does not pass through the center of the planet, the travel time would still be about 42 minutes. The reason for this is that although the tunnel is shorter, the gravitational force along its path is also decreased as compared to that of a tunnel that goes through the center of the planet, which means you would travel more slowly. Because the distance and the component of gravity decrease by the same factor, the travel time ends up being the same.
Would you fall all the way through a theoretical hole in the earth?
T. Fowler
Snohomish, Wash.
Mark Shegelski, an associate professor of physics at the University of Northern British Columbia, explains.
The simple answer is, theoretically, yes. First, let us ignore friction, the rotation of the earth, and other complications, and focus on the case of a hole or tunnel entering the earth at one point, going straight through its center, and coming back to the surface at the opposite side of the planet. If we treat the mass distribution in the earth as uniform, one would fall into the tunnel and then come back up to the surface on the other side in a manner much like the motion of a pendulum swinging down and up again. Assuming that the journey began with zero initial speed (simply dropping into the hole), your speed would increase and reach a maximum at the center of the earth, and then decrease until you reached the surface, at which point the speed would again be zero. The gravitational force exerted on the traveler would be proportional to his distance from the center of the earth: it's at a maximum at the surface and zero at the center. The total time required for this trip would be about 42 minutes. The speed of our traveler at the center of the Earth would be 7,900 meters a second. If there were no friction, there would be no energy loss so our traveler could oscillate into and out of the tunnel.
This trip could not take place in the real world for a number of reasons, including the implausibility of building a tunnel 12,756 kilometers long, displacing all of the material in the tunnel's proposed path, and having the tunnel go through both the earth's molten outer core and its inner core, where the temperature is about 6,000 degrees! It would be much easier to build such a tunnel in a small asteroid. Interestingly enough, for a tunnel that reaches from one point to another point on the earth's surface but does not pass through the center of the planet, the travel time would still be about 42 minutes. The reason for this is that although the tunnel is shorter, the gravitational force along its path is also decreased as compared to that of a tunnel that goes through the center of the planet, which means you would travel more slowly. Because the distance and the component of gravity decrease by the same factor, the travel time ends up being the same.
Mario said:
Red Cross
The Red Cross on white background was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva Convention. It is, in terms of its color, a reversal of the Swiss national flag, a meaning which was adopted to honor Swiss founder Henry Dunant and his home country. The ideas to introduce a uniform and neutral protection symbol as well as its specific design originally came from Dr. Louis Appia and General Henri Dufour, founding members of the International Committee. The Red Cross is defined as a protection symbol in Article 7 of the 1864 Geneva Convention, Chapter VII ("The distinctive emblem") and Article 38 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ("For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"). There is an unofficial agreement within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement that the shape of the cross should be a cross composed of five squares. However, regardless of the shape, any Red Cross on white background should be valid and must be recognized as a protection symbol in conflict. Of the 185 national societies which are currently recognized by the ICRC, 151 are using the Red Cross as their official organization emblem. In addition, the Red Cross is currently used by the national society of Tuvalu which has applied for official recognition.
There are also numerous other variations on the 'red-symbol/white-background' idea:
Red Crescent
During the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878, the Ottoman Empire used a Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross because its government believed that the cross would alienate its Muslim soldiers. When asked by the ICRC in 1877, Russia committed to fully respect the sanctity of all persons and facilities bearing the Red Crescent symbol, followed by a similar commitment from the Ottoman government to respect the Red Cross. After this de facto assessment of equal validity to both symbols, the ICRC declared in 1878 that it should be possible in principle to adopt an additional official protection symbol for non-Christian countries. The Red Crescent was formally recognized in 1929 when the Geneva Conventions were amended (Article 19). Originally, the Red Crescent was used by Turkey and Egypt. From its official recognition to today, the Red Crescent became the organizational emblem of nearly every national society in countries with majority Muslim populations. The national societies of some countries such as Pakistan (1974), Malaysia (1975), or Bangladesh (1989) have officially changed their name and emblem from the Red Cross to the Red Crescent. The Red Crescent is used by 33 of the 185 recognized societies worldwide.
There are also three other recognised symbols world-wide:
Red Crystal
On 22 June 2006 the ICRC announced that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement adopted the Red Crystal as additional emblem for use by the national societies.
Red Lion with Sun
From 1924 to 1980, Iran used a 'Red Lion with Sun' symbol for its national society, based on the flag and emblem of the Shah dynasty. The Red Lion with Sun was formally recognized as a protection symbol in 1929, together with the Red Crescent. Despite the country's shift to the Red Crescent in 1980, Iran explicitly maintains the right to use the symbol. Therefore, it is still recognized by the Geneva Convention as a protection symbol with equal status to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal
Red Shield of David
Magen David Adom, the national society of Israel, has used the Red Shield of David as its organization emblem since its foundation.
Note that Sri Lanka attempted to get a white background with a red swastika accepted, with obvious results...
That do? The joys of Wikipedia....
why thank youcookie_834 said:
and i've just answered my own question
http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/
Oh My Gawd !!!!!!
I just can't sit back and look at this mumbo jumbo any longer, if you guys are gonna debate the effect of gravity then at least discuss one of its more enigmatic features.......discuss this :-
Gravity is a pretty powerful force in that its effect travels the length and breadth of the known universe, in other words, our meager planet in our meager solar system in our meager galaxy has an effect on the furthest star in the furthest solar system in the furthest galaxy.
Obviously the farther it is away the less effect it has and is also a feature of the relative mases of both our planet and the effected sun but nevertheless it has an effect...that said, how can it be that a paper clip with a mass of a few grams that is being attracted by our earth that has a mass of something like 6 x 10 to the power 24 Kg be counteracted by a small weak magnet.
Put more simply, if a paper clip is sitting on a table, being attracted by the force of gravity of the earth that weighs nearly as much as Ledz and Piper combined (Ok I exaggerate) then how come a small magnet can pull that paper clip in the opposite direction of the attractive force of gravity so easily???
Think about that for a minute or so....
Answer that and I'd be impressed !!!
I just can't sit back and look at this mumbo jumbo any longer, if you guys are gonna debate the effect of gravity then at least discuss one of its more enigmatic features.......discuss this :-
Gravity is a pretty powerful force in that its effect travels the length and breadth of the known universe, in other words, our meager planet in our meager solar system in our meager galaxy has an effect on the furthest star in the furthest solar system in the furthest galaxy.
Obviously the farther it is away the less effect it has and is also a feature of the relative mases of both our planet and the effected sun but nevertheless it has an effect...that said, how can it be that a paper clip with a mass of a few grams that is being attracted by our earth that has a mass of something like 6 x 10 to the power 24 Kg be counteracted by a small weak magnet.
Put more simply, if a paper clip is sitting on a table, being attracted by the force of gravity of the earth that weighs nearly as much as Ledz and Piper combined (Ok I exaggerate) then how come a small magnet can pull that paper clip in the opposite direction of the attractive force of gravity so easily???
Think about that for a minute or so....
Answer that and I'd be impressed !!!