Sisyphus

Ok, look. F = kx ma = kx at surface: (1kg)*(9.8m/s^2) = k*(6400000m) Therefore, k = 1.53*10^-6 Ok, now, since m=1, we can ignore it in calculations. Therefore: a = (1.53*10^-6)x This is acceleration as a function of radius. Now, you just have to integrate to get velocity as a function of radius: V = [(1.53*10^-6)x^2]/2 + p, where p is some constant. Simplify to: V = (7.66*10^-7)x^2 + p To complete the equation we need to know what p is. Luckily, we already know what V is at a given x. Namely, that your velocity is zero at the surface: 0 = (7.66*10^-7)6400000^2 + p Hence, once solved, p = 31375360 Now, we have a complete function for velocity as a function of distance from the center: V = (7.66*10^-7)x^2 + 31,375,360 Of course, at the center, x=0, therefore............. V=31,375,360 meters per second Or roughly 112,000,000 km per hour. Or about 0.1c, meaning we've pretty much left Newtonian mechanics altogether. As for your actual question, it looks like you just misplaced a decimal somewhere. I'm too lazy to look for it.

Occam's razor in its original form states simply that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. In other words, make as few assumptions as possible, and discard those aspects of an explanation which are not necessary to it. He also said that, given two explanations with equal predictive power, one should favor the simpler one. So how was bascule's usage incorrect?

Ahhhhh! Your math is waaaay unnecessarily complicated! And it's wrong! Here's a tip. The force of gravity decreases linearly by distance, since g decreases by the square of the radius and the amount of matter underfoot increases by the cube of the radius. So, force varies as distance. Or, F = kx, where F is force, k is some constant, and x is the radius from the center of the Earth. Look familiar? That's right, it's Hooke's law. You can treat the whole thing as if it's a gigantic, very weak, ideal elastic spring.

It's very easy to get a warrant if you actually have a reason for listening.

Well the gravity of everything in the entire universe is acting on you at all times, but we still say that it has a direction (down) and a magnitude, just because that's the net gravity and everthing else pretty much cancels out.

Finally.

Metric is still arbitrary, but it's at least a more logical arbitrary. I'd rather have a system based on water and the Earth's surface than some king's body parts. The fact that it's base ten (and so is most of our mathematics and notation) makes it easier. The fact that the units of different quantities are related in a logical way makes it MUCH easier. For these reasons metric >>> imperial.

Completely agreed with the above. However, I'd also like to add that the cost of invading Lebanon, occupying the country and forcing a regime change would be even higher than that. The Lebanese would certainly be hostile to it, and it would be a horrible quagmire that would occupy their military (which they need strong), probably for decades, during which the world would forget the original reasons for being there and just see an occupying army in a religious war. And if it did work, the rest of the Middle East would just become hostile to Lebanon as well, maybe even more than towards Israel for being "traitors." No puppet government of Israel could possibly survive. Even worse, though, they would pretty much have to declare war on Syria and Iran as well, for which "catastrophe" would be something of an understatement.

Really? What states have that kind of policy?

Yeah, I ignored that because it only makes what I was saying more true. As g decreases, air resistance increases, meaning terminal velocity will drop off even faster. But it's still zero in the center.

I take "terminal velocity" to mean the equilibrium velocity at which the force of gravity is equal to the force of air resistance, resulting in zero acceleration. If there is no force of gravity but there is air, any moving object will eventually slow to a stop (there only being zero air resistance when motionless), making zero its "terminal velocity." Again, terminal velocity is when mg = air resistance. In order to have the same terminal velocity at the surface as everywhere else, g would have to not change. Obviously it would, but I was allowing it for the sake of argument.

It looks like a dead dog. Why would anyone think otherwise?

In the U.S. we pay for higher education ourselves. Even the "public" universities. I'm going to be in debt from student loans for a long time.

Most areas in the U.S. are completely dependant on cars. However, if you had as much clean, renewable energy as you wanted, you could also have as many electric cars as you wanted. However, if you covered the rooftop of every building in the country with 100% efficient solar panels, that still wouldn't be close to enough. You would need tens of thousands of square miles of solar panels beyond that. It may come to that one day, though.

You can make them more resistant, not less. However, I'm assuming you're talking about the "if they're all identical, what kills one kills them all" thing. The simple and rather obvious solution is to not have everything be identical.

Well, at the center of the Earth, the force of gravity is zero, and therefore terminal velocity is zero. However, even assuming gravity was constant all the way through, and you pass the center at the same terminal velocity you have on the surface, you wouldn't get high enough on the other side to reach the same speed coming back. You would have to have all of your kinetic energy convert to potential, which of course you wouldn't since there would be friction. However, if there was no air in the tube and therefore no friction (impossible to do perfectly, but so is drilling a hole through the Earth), you would yoyo back and forth forever, just reaching both surfaces. It's not really a "perpetual motion machine" because you're not getting any more energy out of the system than you start with.

Because bacon is delicious, and human fetuses are not (as far as I know).

Bill O'Reilly is such a parody of himself already, Stephen Colbert barely has to change anything...

YT, there is a propulsion system that can harness that kind of heat very easily: the steam engine. JTM, what's the power plant? Just a big battery? By the way, the most basic electric engine you can build consists of two electromagnets, one than can rotate freely and the other wrapped around the first, with one pole on each side. You run current through both, and the two magnets will allign, north to south. The trick then is to rig it so when they become alligned in one direction, the current and therefore the polarity of one of the magnets reverses direction, causing it it to allign the other way. The result is that the inner magnet spins continuously, thus translating electrical current into mechanical motion.

One of the great business schemes of all time! Subtly manipulate world politics to favor the creation of an alliance of psychotic right-wing expansionist regimes, wait for them to attack us for a convenient excuse to enter the war, then rake in the dough! Now that's old-fashioned American ingenuity!

Hehe. I just saw a television ad equating Hillary Clinton with Osama Bin Laden. Neat!