Radical Edward

thanks dude.

oh yeah it is for a given mass, but then how do we define "solid planet".... solid what? solid iron, solid gold, solid rock, solid neutrons.... then what defines a "planet" other than say, an object orbiting a star. I see no real reason why an incredibly large planet right on the verge of collapsing to a black hole couldn't form around a star (other than ripping the star apart, so lets put it far away from the star) and this would be a planet that crumpled so that it is solid neutrons, give or take a bit. what we can say though is that the largest solid planet could not be any greater in mass than the mass dictated by the schwarzchild radius. If we want sheer volume on the other hand, it would be the chandrasekhar limit. technically that is calculated for white dwarves, but I see no reason why one could not apply it to planets. so the largest planet would be about 1.44 solar masses

monozygotic twins.

google bomb the site.

sorry, I can't edit posts from this machine because it is in chinese. I meant to add that there are a finite number of points that are one metre apart on a closed surface like a sphere.

a closed surface is one option of course, but so is a surface of infinite extent. you can say that at the big bang singularity, the distance between all points was zero. this does not limit the number of points later on, i.e. the number of points one metre apart from one another, to be a finite quantity.

well it could be infinite in extent, but the problem arises of course that you can only see as far as the light has been travelling as a result of the finite age of the universe. i.e. right now we can only see 13.7 billion light years maximum.

please check the announcement at the top of the relativity forum.

"did allegedly"? isn't that some kind of contradiction?

the earth does have two moons though, not including all the junk that we keep leaving up there.

you might as well feed beans to lunar explorers and only allow them to fart in one direction.

depends on the possible evolutionary paths. I suspect that it would take a while for the meme to emerge again, but once it did, it's journey would be not as unlike our own as sci fi movies like to predict. also the odds of them all speaking English with a californian accent are quite slim.

no, they are oblique spheroids, not spheres. and the only planet shapes will be gravitationally stable ones.

schwarzchild radius isn't it?

there isn't one.

younger.

well the force applied by a mass of 2g is 0.02 N (roughly), however to figure this out from say, something slowing a bullet down, you need to work how rapidly the mass is slowed otherwise you are missing a per-second unit. (momentum is kg*m/s, force is kg*m/(s^2) )

I suspect hanging something from the centre until it breaks.

that's just momentum. p=mv. the important thing is the strength of the resisting material. you can't really say it behaves like something with "twice it's mass" since that makes no sense, unless you want to play with relativity, in which case it will be a significant fraction of c.

just centrifuge the u238 out.

nope, acceleration is a different case. if you imagine trying o perform an experiment in an accelerating frame, the results will change. say you drop a ball in a car that is at constant velocity, to you, it will seem to drop straight down, and the same will happen to someone who is standing next to the road. now imagine your car is accelerating. as soon as you drop it, the vehicle will still be accelerating in the horizontal direction but the ball won't, and in the car, you will see the ball move to one side as it falls.

just because other buildings that aren't arranged to match star allignments do just that, doesn't really mean that no buildings have been arranged to match star allignments. I would not be at all suprised if the pyramids were arranged to this allignment, based on the premise that the egyptians were superstitious and believed in such things as heavens, especially considering a number of other factors relating to the pyramids, and indeed many ancient temples. They were clearly very good mathematicians, so it is hardly suprising. just to add, this does not mean that aliens did it.

hay, has anyone heard of timecube? I hear it is relly cool.

this is roughly the process that food processors and carrot slicers use.

what? I know it is only relative to the earth. I thought that would be blazingly obvious, or it would not be called an orbit. geosynchronous just means synchronised, such that it has an orbit of one sidereal day. it can still move up and down a bit.