Ok to answer one of your opening questions:
No you would not burn alive. Anyone with more then a few braincells would realize that
.
No you would not burn alive. Anyone with more then a few braincells would realize that
.If I went?
- Thread starter mlbtheshow
- Start date
At 120mph
12mins 30 to get through the crust
15 hours through the mantle
11:40:00 to get through the outer core
6:40:00 to get through the inner core
11:40:00 to get back through the outer core
15 hours to get back through the mantle
12mins 30 to get back through the crust and come out on the other side
I can't be arsed to add it up
I'm pretty sure you'd stop at the middle.
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
Our survey asked, "Which of the people in this thread would almost certainly fail the mental proficiency tests necessary to have a fulfilling and educational time at Primary School?"
The Results
100% - The OP
0% - Everyone else
The Results
100% - The OP
0% - Everyone else
Associate
In theory, you'd end up bungeeing back and forth, until finally coming to rest dead centre, where you would float weightlessly until you ran out of oxygen.
Permabanned
In theory...?
No one will ever make it anywhere near the core. The amount of pressure is immense. The heat is immense. It's impossible.
Oxygen would be the absolute last of your worries, and so many assumptions need to be defined about the entire hypothetical situation before any comment can be made about kinetic behaviour.
Man of Honour
Um, what?
Permabanned
Continents do not move, there is no subduction. There is only spreading.
Permabanned
He did say in theory, to be fair, Pressures just 30 miles beneath the surface are near 200,000 psi, and the core is hotter than the surface of the Sun, around 6000-7000°C.
You defiantly don't need to worry about running out of oxygen, and you'd need a hell of a bungee chord!
Associate
Yes, by "in theory", I mean assuming that you could. We all know you can't, and I wasn't implying otherwise.
Permabanned
That video animation i don't agree with. That is what they teach at school though.
I think that the planet was smaller and the all the continents surface area was once the only surface area on the planet. As the planet grew in size the oceans cooled the new mantle and turned it in to ocean floor or crust. Obviously planets do not start out the size they are at the moment, they have start at some point and then grow to even larger sizes, how else could explain different size planets? Each planet we can see the same spreading. As the earth expands the new crust is formed enlarging the surface area of the planet.
I think that the planet was smaller and the all the continents surface area was once the only surface area on the planet. As the planet grew in size the oceans cooled the new mantle and turned it in to ocean floor or crust. Obviously planets do not start out the size they are at the moment, they have start at some point and then grow to even larger sizes, how else could explain different size planets? Each planet we can see the same spreading. As the earth expands the new crust is formed enlarging the surface area of the planet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
somehow they managed it in the 60's
i recall reading a few years back of 3 companies planning to try and make it back there, and take a proper look. if memory serves richard branson might be one of the ones involved.
there's theories about liquid methane pools at that depth, with such enourmous pressure although obviously unconfirmed
edit: apparently james cameron's been down there too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger
Last edited:
That video animation i don't agree with. That is what they teach at school though.
I think that the planet was smaller and the all the continents surface area was once the only surface area on the planet. As the planet grew in size the oceans cooled the new mantle and turned it in to ocean floor or crust. Obviously planets do not start out the size they are at the moment, they have start at some point and then grow to even larger sizes, how else could explain different size planets? Each planet we can see the same spreading. As the earth expands the new crust is formed enlarging the surface area of the planet.
Yeh I think that's just to show current/recent history, the earth was hotter and smaller, entropy? presumably we'd end up a gas giant planet assuming nothing happened to veer us off the natural planetary evolution.
Begs the question what happened to mars though, with its 'dead core'.
Associate
No, a body would roughly execute "Simple Harmonic Motion" (search SHM or Classical Harmonic Oscillators on Google for more details) about the centre of the Earth if there was a hypothetical one dimensional tunnel through the Earth's centre. We know this as gravity would act as the restoring force as you move through this "tunnel" (much like the restoring force on a spring undergoing SHM, which in that case is modelled simply by Hooke's Law: F = -kx, where F is the force, k is the spring constant and x is the displacement from equilibrium position) causing you to oscillate about the equilibrium of the Earth centre.
Of course, the actual motion of the body would be slightly more complicated than just SHM as one would have to consider the change in gravitational field strength (g) through the Earth's layers as it is not constant with radial distance; I'm not sure what relationship it roughly follows to be honest.
But, I guess your comment has some truth to it at least, as eventually the body would come to a stop at the Earth's centre assuming general SHM conditions.
Of course, apologies, I didn't mean an instant stop. I just meant assuming a constant speed from one side of the Earth do the other is a bit ridiculous and that the centre would be the point at which forces would reverse.
Soldato
you wouldn't burn alive, I've been it was lovely