Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Earth is smoother than a billiard ball
13 views
Skip to first unread message
HVAC
Apr 7, 2012, 9:55:22 AM4/7/12
to
The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
Specifications (November 2001) state: "All balls must be composed of
cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ź (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+
.127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ˝ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms]."
(Specification 16.)
This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any
imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other
words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 =
0.0022222
The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200
metres.
12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum
allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea
level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11
kilometres below sea level.
So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its
mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications
for smoothness.
However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
a425couple
Apr 7, 2012, 11:38:22 AM4/7/12
to
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message...
Re: Earth is smoother than a billiard ball
Re: Earth is smoother than a billiard ball
> The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
> Specifications (November 2001) state:
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
> Specifications (November 2001) state:
HVAC
Apr 7, 2012, 11:50:29 AM4/7/12
to
Chris Richardson
Apr 7, 2012, 12:40:41 PM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:55:22 -0400, HVAC wrote:
> However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
> of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
> to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
> sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
> shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
> is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
> sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
Correction: The *rotating* earth is not a perfect sphere.
> However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
> of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
> to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
> sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
> shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
> is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
> sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
The earth is essentially a rotating and *liquid* mass that
covered by a thin solid "crust." When something with this
kind of structure is subject to rotation, it's no wonder that
is no a perfect sphere.
Also, because of the irregular and inhomogeneous composition
of the earth, a conceptual model known as the "geoid" is used
to define the earth's shape. Using this geoid model, the
earth, if reduced to the size of a billiard ball, would far
exceed the specifications of the WPA -- at least in terms
of surface variations.
hanson
Apr 7, 2012, 12:56:41 PM4/7/12
to
Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table
and Equipment Specifications (November 2001) state:
||||||| Re: Earth is smoother than a billiard ball
>>
a425couple wrote:
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
>
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
>
Rich Haley wrote:
No problem. I'm almost a saint.
>
hanson wrote:
No problem. I'm almost a saint.
>
... Sure your are, even if you have to say so yourself.
Also tell the happy couple that your 2001 ref goes
back to highschool sci lectures of the 1960, so
my dad told me.
>
In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your
breath condense on it, then the thickness of the wet
film that forms on its surface is like the depth of the
oceans on earth.
>
Run the numbers for them and you'll be a full-fledged
Saint.
>
Thanks for the;laughs, guys.... ahahahahahanson
a425couple
Apr 7, 2012, 1:18:34 PM4/7/12
to
"Chris Richardson" <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message...
Interesting thoughts from this "correction".
But, how could anyone/anything stop this rotation,
without horribly distorting & wrecking it?
(Sidetrip = You know, even with today's lightweight
more fuel efficient cars, it takes quite a bit of inertia
to do much deforming of them.
After viewing a couple of railroad locomotives
((real serious, real heavy duty metal structure there!))
that were quite noticably deformed & twisted,
WOW! How many joules?)
But, how could anyone/anything stop this rotation,
without horribly distorting & wrecking it?
(Sidetrip = You know, even with today's lightweight
more fuel efficient cars, it takes quite a bit of inertia
to do much deforming of them.
After viewing a couple of railroad locomotives
((real serious, real heavy duty metal structure there!))
that were quite noticably deformed & twisted,
WOW! How many joules?)
Sam Wormley
Apr 7, 2012, 1:22:16 PM4/7/12
to
On 4/7/12 12:18 PM, a425couple wrote:
> You know, even with today's lightweight
> more fuel efficient cars, it takes quite a bit of inertia
> to do much deforming of them
Instead of "inertia", you probably meant "force".
> You know, even with today's lightweight
> more fuel efficient cars, it takes quite a bit of inertia
> to do much deforming of them
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 1:26:48 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 9:40 am, Chris Richardson <r...@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
That's right, because it's mostly a hot liquid rock and/or metals
inside, and otherwise it's mostly fluid surface is eroding into the
sea faster than those volumes of our glacial ice is melting.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
wrote:
inside, and otherwise it's mostly fluid surface is eroding into the
sea faster than those volumes of our glacial ice is melting.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
7
Apr 7, 2012, 1:51:41 PM4/7/12
to
HVAC wrote:
>
>
> The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
> Specifications (November 2001) state: "All balls must be composed of
> cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+
>
>
> The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
> Specifications (November 2001) state: "All balls must be composed of
> .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms]."
> (Specification 16.)
>
> This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any
> imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other
> words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 =
> 0.0022222
>
> The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200
> metres.
>
> 12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
>
> So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum
> allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
>
> Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea
> level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11
> kilometres below sea level.
>
> So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its
> mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications
> for smoothness.
>
> However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
> of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
> to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
> sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
> shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
> is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
> sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
It would also be dammed heavy, 2/3rds wet and have a weak
> (Specification 16.)
>
> This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any
> imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other
> words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 =
> 0.0022222
>
> The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200
> metres.
>
> 12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
>
> So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum
> allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
>
> Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea
> level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11
> kilometres below sea level.
>
> So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its
> mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications
> for smoothness.
>
> However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
> of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
> to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
> sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
> shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
> is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
> sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
magnetic field.
Chris Richardson
Apr 7, 2012, 1:55:41 PM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:18:34 -0700, a425couple wrote:
>
> But, how could anyone/anything stop this rotation,
> without horribly distorting & wrecking it?
>
It's never going to stop.
>
> But, how could anyone/anything stop this rotation,
> without horribly distorting & wrecking it?
>
The OP was merely a fanciful, and quite meaningless, comparison.
It is based on the old trick of "scaling" which is often used
by journalists and other popular writers to dazzle the ignorant.
The WPA has set standards to fit a certain operational context.
Billiard balls must me uniformly smooth to prevent or eliminate
any effects on ball motion that do not arise from the forces applied
by the players. Such standards are only meaningful within the
physical context and parameters of the billiard game and become quite
meaningless when extrapolated, or scaled, to much larger dimensions.
> After viewing a couple of railroad locomotives
> ((real serious, real heavy duty metal structure there!))
are not?
The pulling power (or tractive effort) of locomotives depends
on the friction of the wheel/rail interface, and this friction
depends on the magnitude of normal force (or weight) at the interface.
The heavier the locomotive, the greater will be the normal
force and the greater will be the friction.
Friction actually depends on contact area between two surfaces.
Increasing the normal force will actually increase the the
contact area (from a microscopic point of view).
Railroad wheels are machined to be very smooth to lead to
a greater contact area (at the microscopic level) and hence
provide more pulling power (called tractive effort).
Billiard balls need to be smooth so that the motion of
the ball will more ideally follow the applied forces.
Richard Tobin
Apr 7, 2012, 2:41:35 PM4/7/12
to
The parent article is remarkably similar to the first part of
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/08/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-the-earth/
-- Richard
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/08/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-the-earth/
-- Richard
Brad Guth
Apr 7, 2012, 3:39:48 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 11:41 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> The parent article is remarkably similar to the first part of
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/08/ten-things-...
> The parent article is remarkably similar to the first part of
>
>
> -- Richard
HVAC always plagiarizes and seldom if ever admits to it. He does this
because he has no actual original ideas or interpretations that
haven't been scripted. ZNR certified rusemasters and FUD-masters are
never permitted to think on their own.
Mike Painter
Apr 7, 2012, 3:51:06 PM4/7/12
to
On 4/7/2012 9:56 AM, hanson wrote:
>
> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
> like the depth of the
> oceans on earth.
Elliptical billiard balls?
>
> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
> like the depth of the
> oceans on earth.
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
The billiard sharp who any one catches,
His doom's extremely hard —
He's made to dwell —
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls!
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk206.html
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 6:00:20 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/7/2012 3:51 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 9:56 AM, hanson wrote:
>>
>
>> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
>> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
>> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
>> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
>> like the depth of the
>> oceans on earth.
>
> Elliptical billiard balls?
>
> My object all sublime
Exactly, Mike...His breath didn't condense on the ball, it sublimed.
> On 4/7/2012 9:56 AM, hanson wrote:
>>
>
>> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
>> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
>> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
>> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
>> like the depth of the
>> oceans on earth.
>
> Elliptical billiard balls?
>
> My object all sublime
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 6:01:47 AM4/8/12
to
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 6:03:51 AM4/8/12
to
On 4/7/2012 1:55 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
>
>
> The OP was merely a fanciful, and quite meaningless, comparison.
> It is based on the old trick of "scaling" which is often used
> by journalists and other popular writers to dazzle the ignorant.
>
> The WPA has set standards to fit a certain operational context.
> Billiard balls must me uniformly smooth to prevent or eliminate
> any effects on ball motion that do not arise from the forces applied
> by the players. Such standards are only meaningful within the
> physical context and parameters of the billiard game and become quite
> meaningless when extrapolated, or scaled, to much larger dimensions.
Well, thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill.
>
>
> The OP was merely a fanciful, and quite meaningless, comparison.
> It is based on the old trick of "scaling" which is often used
> by journalists and other popular writers to dazzle the ignorant.
>
> The WPA has set standards to fit a certain operational context.
> Billiard balls must me uniformly smooth to prevent or eliminate
> any effects on ball motion that do not arise from the forces applied
> by the players. Such standards are only meaningful within the
> physical context and parameters of the billiard game and become quite
> meaningless when extrapolated, or scaled, to much larger dimensions.
What are you going to tell me next? That the Easter Bunny isn't real?
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 6:10:59 AM4/8/12
to
Hägar
Apr 8, 2012, 12:02:50 PM4/8/12
to
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jlrnq7$v1u$5...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> On 4/7/2012 1:55 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>> The OP was merely a fanciful, and quite meaningless, comparison.
>> It is based on the old trick of "scaling" which is often used
>> by journalists and other popular writers to dazzle the ignorant.
>>
>> The WPA has set standards to fit a certain operational context.
>> Billiard balls must me uniformly smooth to prevent or eliminate
>> any effects on ball motion that do not arise from the forces applied
>> by the players. Such standards are only meaningful within the
>> physical context and parameters of the billiard game and become quite
>> meaningless when extrapolated, or scaled, to much larger dimensions.
>
> Well, thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill.
>
> What are you going to tell me next? That the Easter Bunny isn't real?
Say, HVAC, don't you ever get tired of trying to educate a
>>
>>
>> The OP was merely a fanciful, and quite meaningless, comparison.
>> It is based on the old trick of "scaling" which is often used
>> by journalists and other popular writers to dazzle the ignorant.
>>
>> The WPA has set standards to fit a certain operational context.
>> Billiard balls must me uniformly smooth to prevent or eliminate
>> any effects on ball motion that do not arise from the forces applied
>> by the players. Such standards are only meaningful within the
>> physical context and parameters of the billiard game and become quite
>> meaningless when extrapolated, or scaled, to much larger dimensions.
>
> Well, thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill.
>
> What are you going to tell me next? That the Easter Bunny isn't real?
collection of nit-picking Loons ???
HVAC
Apr 8, 2012, 1:18:41 PM4/8/12
to
On 4/8/2012 12:02 PM, Hägar wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill.
>>
>> What are you going to tell me next? That the Easter Bunny isn't real?
>
>
> Say, HVAC, don't you ever get tired of trying to educate a
> collection of nit-picking Loons ???
No. I'm a natural born teacher.
>
>>
>> Well, thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill.
>>
>> What are you going to tell me next? That the Easter Bunny isn't real?
>
>
> Say, HVAC, don't you ever get tired of trying to educate a
> collection of nit-picking Loons ???
Brad Guth
Apr 8, 2012, 1:54:35 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 9:02 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
We can assume that yourself as a certified redneck "nit-picking Loon"
of the Semitic kind, would know best.
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
of the Semitic kind, would know best.
Hägar
Apr 8, 2012, 3:00:42 PM4/8/12
to
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45849702-902b-4753...@iu9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
... thus far you're batting zero, you delusional fucktard ...
Will Janoschka
Apr 8, 2012, 6:05:02 PM4/8/12
to
Chris Richardson
Apr 8, 2012, 10:59:15 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:05:02 -0500, Will Janoschka wrote:
> The earth is not composed of cast phenolic resin either!
In a sense it is -- at least partly.
> The earth is not composed of cast phenolic resin either!
Phenolic compounds are derived wholly from petroleum and/or
coal tars, and the earth contains quite a lot of those.
Mike Painter
Apr 8, 2012, 11:56:21 PM4/8/12
to
I suspect he did so because it was not needed for the level at which he
presented the information.
Since they were aware of the facts, HVAC, did not educate them.
In my mind the loon would be the one who did not want to learn.
hanson
Apr 9, 2012, 2:58:52 AM4/9/12
to
Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 3:51 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>
hanson wrote:
>>> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
>>> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
>>> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
>>> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
>>> like the depth of the
>>> oceans on earth.
>>
>>
hanson wrote:
>>> In addition, excite the couple also with the fact that
>>> when you take your billiard ball, put it into the freezer,
>>> take it out when cold, then breathe on it, and let your breath condense
>>> on it, then the thickness of the wet film that forms on its surface is
>>> like the depth of the
>>> oceans on earth.
>>
The mentation of Mike Painter got fainter when he wrote:
>> Elliptical billiard balls?
>> My object all sublime
>
Rich Haley, the sub, slipped on the lime & gave the following line:
>> Elliptical billiard balls?
>> My object all sublime
>
> Exactly, Mike...His breath didn't condense on the ball, it sublimed.
>
hanson wrote:
>
You, Richey are like Mike. Not "elliptic" but "epileptic", cuz
under the conditions described water will not sublim(at)e
But never the less I'll let you whine and shine.
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
JT
Apr 9, 2012, 7:40:09 AM4/9/12
to
tornados. Any dynamo need sufficiently shielding.
HVAC
Apr 9, 2012, 8:56:41 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 8:21 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> There is no perfect sphere in the macro realm.I see a non-spinning black hole the closest object be be perfectly round.
Please point to an example of a 'non-spinning' black hole.
(I know there aren't any, but go ahead and look anyway)
> Comparing pool ball to Earth is not good. Comparing Earth and Moon makes more sense. We can then use an eclipse. TreBert
What the fuck are you talking about here?
>
>
> There is no perfect sphere in the macro realm.I see a non-spinning black hole the closest object be be perfectly round.
Please point to an example of a 'non-spinning' black hole.
(I know there aren't any, but go ahead and look anyway)
> Comparing pool ball to Earth is not good. Comparing Earth and Moon makes more sense. We can then use an eclipse. TreBert
What the fuck are you talking about here?
Painius
Apr 14, 2012, 3:47:21 AM4/14/12
to
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:55:22 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
>Specifications (November 2001) state: "All balls must be composed of
>
>
>The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment
>cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ź (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+
>.127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ˝ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms]."
>(Specification 16.)
>
>This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any
>imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other
>words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 =
>0.0022222
>
>The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200
>metres.
>
>12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
>
>So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum
>allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
>
>Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea
>level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11
>kilometres below sea level.
>
>So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its
>mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications
>for smoothness.
>
>(Specification 16.)
>
>This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any
>imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other
>words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 =
>0.0022222
>
>The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200
>metres.
>
>12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
>
>So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum
>allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
>
>Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea
>level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11
>kilometres below sea level.
>
>So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its
>mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications
>for smoothness.
>
>However, it should be noted that if the Earth were reduced to the size
>of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
>to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
>sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
>shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
>is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
>sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
I don't think that's true. You have to halve the 42km to get the diff
>of a billiard ball, it would not conform to the WPA specifications, due
>to its shape (as well as its composition). The Earth is not a perfect
>sphere. It is an oblate spheroid. The distance between its poles is
>shorter than its diameter at the equator by apporoximately 42km. As this
>is greater than the 28.347km stated above, it would not be deemed
>sufficiently spherical to pass the test.
in the pole RADIUS vs. the equatorial RADIUS, which would be 21km.
That would be well within the 28.347km stated above. So Earth most
assuredly *would* be deemed sufficiently spherical to pass the test!
Happy days *and*...
Starry starry nights !
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Only you can make the most of yourself.
G=EMC^2
Apr 14, 2012, 9:00:49 AM4/14/12
to
Will Janoschka
Apr 14, 2012, 2:10:20 PM4/14/12
to
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:00:49, "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That would depend the stress to strain of the material. With the size
of the earth and the density of carbon.
and enough mass of diamond "surface" for the round diamond to be
"sitting on" rather than vice versa,
the pressure (stress) would likly exceed the fracture preassure of
diamond! (500,000,000 psi) approx.
"Do not try this experiment at home!" How is your heavy air doing?
wrote:
of the earth and the density of carbon.
and enough mass of diamond "surface" for the round diamond to be
"sitting on" rather than vice versa,
the pressure (stress) would likly exceed the fracture preassure of
diamond! (500,000,000 psi) approx.
"Do not try this experiment at home!" How is your heavy air doing?
G=EMC^2
Apr 14, 2012, 8:03:42 PM4/14/12
to
Will Janoschka
Apr 15, 2012, 4:14:28 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:03:42, "G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com>
wrote:
How about your Earth sized spherical diamond, breaking into 1/12 caret
shards, just because
of your "mind experiment". What a great find. Now everyone can
have a nice ring of no value!
wrote:
shards, just because
of your "mind experiment". What a great find. Now everyone can
have a nice ring of no value!
0 new messages