Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> Apart from the absence of the plasma tube, I'd say it was Thistledown.
>
> Where does your hollow asteroid get its light from?

....except that Thistledown was indefinitely long inside.  This one appears
to stop.

Post a reply to this message

"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mike Williams wrote:
> > Apart from the absence of the plasma tube, I'd say it was Thistledown.
> >
> > Where does your hollow asteroid get its light from?
> >
> Wow.  Someone else reads what I read.
>
> A.D.B.
>
> P.S. Alain,  Gravity is based on mass.  A sphere the size of earth's
> orbit with a shell thick enough to withstand impacts would naturally
> have a reasonable amount of gravity on it's inside surface.

Actually the gravity felt at a distance underground is that due to the
sphere that you are standing on alone.  Remove that sphere of material and
you are in free-fall.  The easy way to think of this is that a small amount
of material nearby is balanced by a lot at a distance.

Andy

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Marc Jacquier who wrote:
>

>news:434e9f3b$1@news.povray.org...
>In other words, to
>> simplify things, without extra masses...you weigh less at noon?
>>
>Don't tides work this way?

Not at all. If that was how tides worked, there would only be one tide
per day instead of two. Tidal forces also make you lighter when the
extra mass is directly below your feet.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Mack Tuesday who wrote:
>Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
>> Apart from the absence of the plasma tube, I'd say it was Thistledown.
>>
>> Where does your hollow asteroid get its light from?
>
>....except that Thistledown was indefinitely long inside.  This one appears
>to stop.

I was thinking of one of the first six chambers. (I had to think for a
while for the term "plasma tube", I knew that I didn't want to say
"flaw").

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

news:Cra### [at] econymdemoncouk...
> Wasn't it Marc Jacquier who wrote:
> >

> >news:434e9f3b$1@news.povray.org...
> >In other words, to
> >> simplify things, without extra masses...you weigh less at noon?
> >>
> >Don't tides work this way?
>
> Not at all. If that was how tides worked, there would only be one tide
> per day instead of two. Tidal forces also make you lighter when the
> extra mass is directly below your feet.
>
> -- 
The secon rise is due to a resonnance, an harmonic

Marc

Post a reply to this message

Marc Jacquier wrote:

> news:Cra### [at] econymdemoncouk...
> 
>>Wasn't it Marc Jacquier who wrote:
>>

>>>news:434e9f3b$1@news.povray.org...
>>>In other words, to
>>>
>>>>simplify things, without extra masses...you weigh less at noon?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't tides work this way?
>>
>>Not at all. If that was how tides worked, there would only be one tide
>>per day instead of two. Tidal forces also make you lighter when the
>>extra mass is directly below your feet.
>>
>>-- 
> 
> The secon rise is due to a resonnance, an harmonic
> 
> Marc
> 

No, it's not a resonnance.  The way I've heard the two tides explained 
is that the ocean is raised by the moon's gravity on that side of the 
earth, but it also pulls the _earth_ away from the water on the far 
side.  So the high tide on the far side is not that the water is higher, 
but that the earth is lower.

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

Rick Measham wrote:
> Mike Williams wrote:
> 
>> The strength of the force varies with cos(latitude) and the angle to the
>> local vertical is proportional to latitude. So people standing near the
>> poles get very little force, and what force there is would be almost
>> horizontal.
> 
> 
> Which is where the original argument came from (and I agree) .. the 
> poles would implode, thus degrading the structure and causing the 
> equator to explode.
> 
> One poster (somewhere, not here) suggested a band rather than a sphere. 
> The 'band' would be the equatorial region and would (somehow) hold 
> together as it spun.

And then some other killjoy did the math and realized that if the ring 
were to be moved so that the star was no longer in the center, the 
situation would not correct itself naturally; if there were no 
artificial corrective measures, the ring would eventually collide with 
the sun.  Roll the credits.

BTW, Dyson himself did not postulate a solid sphere, but a large number 
of small bodies which collectively capture all of the output from a 
given star.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it Marc Jacquier who wrote:
>

>news:Cra### [at] econymdemoncouk...
>> Wasn't it Marc Jacquier who wrote:
>> >

>> >news:434e9f3b$1@news.povray.org...
>> >In other words, to
>> >> simplify things, without extra masses...you weigh less at noon?
>> >>
>> >Don't tides work this way?
>>
>> Not at all. If that was how tides worked, there would only be one tide
>> per day instead of two. Tidal forces also make you lighter when the
>> extra mass is directly below your feet.
>>
>> -- 
>The secon rise is due to a resonnance, an harmonic

Actually it isn't. 

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

news:434f00d0$1@news.povray.org...
> No, it's not a resonnance.  The way I've heard the two tides explained
> is that the ocean is raised by the moon's gravity on that side of the
> earth, but it also pulls the _earth_ away from the water on the far
> side.  So the high tide on the far side is not that the water is higher,
> but that the earth is lower.
>
>       -=- Larry -=-

A kind of (squared) gradient of gravity?

Marc

Post a reply to this message

news:434f0dfe$1@news.povray.org...

> BTW, Dyson himself did not postulate a solid sphere, but a large number
> of small bodies which collectively capture all of the output from a
> given star.
>
How to avoid collisions between these bodies then?

Marc

Post a reply to this message