0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't see how a toroid shape would be stable under such extremes of pressure and temperature - unless it were spinning at an unrealistic rate, considering the high levels of drag down there. As a sphere is the most stable configuration, I'd go for that.
My latest reckoning is that the innermost core of the earth is most likely close to spherical. The inner core of the sun though is most likely asymmetric, perhaps 'american football' or 'rugby ball' shaped.
Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example.
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 06/05/2009 15:33:38My latest reckoning is that the innermost core of the earth is most likely close to spherical. The inner core of the sun though is most likely asymmetric, perhaps 'american football' or 'rugby ball' shaped.Well that is a relief. So we may wholly discard your original post which opened this thread. The Earth's core is not a toroid. We are agreed on that.Several points I raised while disputing your claim went completely unanswered. It was almost as if you changed the subject when challenged. I'm sure that was just an appearance and that you overlooked these points in haste. Let us return to some of them, starting here.Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 28/04/2009 11:34:12QuoteEveryone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example. I responded with these words.This is either profound ignorance or a blatant lie. Any astronomy textbook you care to consult, plus thousands of peer reviewed research papers explain, establish and expand the fact that planets do result from coalescing ordinary lumps of rock. Would you be prepared to retract this statement? It has an equally poor foundation as your toroidal core idea and you have rightly abandoned it. Will you let this one go also? Then we might be able to make some progress.
Also there's the fact that gravity isn't a very strong force. 2 small rocks atract eachother so slightly that it's hard to measure but if you have a whole planet's worth of rocks atracting one another it's a different story.
It formed from a whole planets' worth of smaller rocks attracting one another.What did you think I meant?
There must be some essential difference between a stable group of asteroids, on their own established orbits around the Sun and a load of rocks which can form a single mass. There has to be some mechanism to dissipate energy, so that they settle down together in one orbital position. They need to have a relatively high probability of collisions to account for this energy loss. Would there be a better chance if the rocks were, in fact, dust particles with the same total mass?
I'm not agreeing with any of YOUR old rubbish though. There is a conventional reason - I suggested it. We don't need to stray into the realms of fantasy yet.