Why does a rock fall, according to FET?

  • 36 Replies
  • 8636 Views
?

Raiku

  • 118
  • +0/-0
  • War Squirrel.
Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« on: December 09, 2009, 02:31:52 PM »
Rocks are part of the Earth.  Even when you pick them up they shouldn't fall to the ground, yet they do.

I wonder what crazy explanations I'll get from this.   ;D

Unicorns with laser eyes?  Giant, non-manmade mirrors?  Light bending upwards for no apparent reason?  Dark energy monsters?
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10716
  • +0/-0
  • ...
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2009, 02:52:24 PM »
Please read the FAQ and ENaG.
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2009, 03:03:39 PM »
Rocks are part of the Earth.  Even when you pick them up they shouldn't fall to the ground, yet they do.

I wonder what crazy explanations I'll get from this.   ;D

Unicorns with laser eyes?  Giant, non-manmade mirrors?  Light bending upwards for no apparent reason?  Dark energy monsters?
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 03:23:39 PM »
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.

Many FE'ers disagree with that statement.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 06:03:49 PM »
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.

Many FE'ers disagree with that statement.
Sure, but they are wrong.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2009, 07:55:15 PM »
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.

Many FE'ers disagree with that statement.
Sure, but they are wrong.
I speculate that there is a large mass under the Flat Earth that contains all of its inhabitants missing qualifiers, and this is the source of gravitation.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2009, 08:28:20 PM »
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.

If we actually consider an infinite homogeneous slab with density ρ and total thickness H, then, due to symmetry, the graviational field must be directed along the normal of the slab and towards it. Similarly, we deduce that the intensity of the graviational field must be equal at all points lying in a plane parallel to the sides of the slab. This allows us to use Gauss' theorem to calculate the intensity of the graviational field g at any plane. The plane passing through the middle of the slab and being parallel to the sides is a plane of symmetry. We choose it as the yz plane of a coordinate system, as depicted in the following figure:


Then, the vector graviational field g has a direction along x when x>0 and along -x when x<0. Furthermore, the intensity of this field g depends only on x and g(-x) = g(x), which is in accordance to the above mentioned symmetry.

If we consider a prism with a basis parallel to the sides of the slab and height 2x, then, the flux of the gravitaitonal field through this Gaussian surface is:

Φ = -2*gA,

because the flux from the sides is zero, since the field is parallel to them, and, along the bases, the field intensity is constant and the field is perpendicular to them.

The total mass contained within this prism is:

M = ρA*2|x|, |x| <= H/2,

M = ρA*H, |x| > H/2.

According to Gauss' Law for the graviational field:

Φ = -4*π*G*M,

where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant, we can get:

g(x) = 4*π*G*ρ*|x|, |x|<= H/2

g(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*H, |x| > H/2

We see that the field intensity is zero in the middle of the slab and it rises linearly with height as we approach the surface, where it reaches the maximum value. After that, the field is constant. The maximum value is:

g0 = 2*π*G*ρ*H.

The graviational potential in this field V(x) is given by:

-g(x) = -dV/dx, x > 0,

g(x) = -dV/dx, x < 0.

We see that the derivative of the potential is an odd function of x (because g(x) was an even one and the extra minus sign coming from the change in direction). Therefore, the potential is an even function of x and it is sufficient to consider only the region x > 0. Furthermore, we choose a reference level V(0) = 0. Doing the integration and making sure the potential is continuous at x = H/2, we get:

V(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*x2, 0 < x < H/2,

V(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*H*x, H/2 < x.

Next, we want to find the total potential energy of the slab in its own gravitational field. But, since the slab is infinite, this is an infinite quantity. The potential energy per unit area, however, is a well defined quantity, because, the mass per unit area is finite. The mass in an infintesimal slab between (x, x + dx) is:

dm/A = ρ*dx

The potential energy of this element is simply V(x)*dm/A. Integrating with respect to x from -H/2 to H/2. We get:

U/A = π*G*ρ2*H3/6

Other things equal, the potential energy is positive and proportional to the cube of the thickness of the slab. We consider the following possibility: What if some material in the center of the slab liquifies and drips off the edges (the assumption of infinite slab is not a contradiction, since infinite means we can neglect edge effects, but a boundary, albeit moved to infinity is still present). Energy is required for this process, since it is a phase transition. But, by the liquid dripping off, the thickness decreases and the potential energy decreases. If the decrease in the potential energy is greater than the heat of melting, then this process is quite possible. If the thickness decreases by an infinitesimal amount dH, then the mass (per unit area) that is melted is:

dM/A = ρ*dH,

so the heat of melting (per unit area) is:

dQ/A = L*ρ*dH,

where L is the latent heat of melting (energy per unit mass). The decrease in potential energy is the differential of U/A with respect to H:

|dU|/A = π*G*ρ2*H2*dH/2.

The process we are describing is impossible if dQ/A >= |dU|/A, since there would not be enough energy for the phase transition to occur. This gives an upper bound of the slab's thickness:

H <= [2*L/(π*G*ρ)]1/2.

Other things equal, the gravitational field at the surface of the slab is proportional to its thickness. This means, there is a maximal value for the value of the gravitational field, since there is a maximal thickness. This is:

g0 <= 2*[2*π*G*ρ*L]1/2.

Why did we do this? Well, we can estimate the order of magnitude of ρ and L for known materials, and, knowning the exact value of g0 = 9.8 m/s2, we can get an estimate of the order of magnitude for the Universal gravitational constant. The density of the Earth's crust is not less than the density of water so ρ ~ 103 kg/m3. The latent heat of melting for most materials is of the order of magnitude 104 - 105 J/kg. This gives an order of magnitude estimate:
g02 ≲ 8*π*G*ρ*L,

Gg02/(8*π*ρ*L),

G ≳ 10-8 - 10-7 m3/(kg*s2).

This is several orders of magnitude greater than the experimental value of the Universal Gravitational constant G = 6.67 x 10-11 m3/(kg*s2)! This means that, assuming Newtonian Gravitation Law is a correct approximation to a high degree of accuracy, it is highly unlikely that the shape of the Earth is an infinite slab with finite thickness, strictly by considering issues of stability of such a system under perturbations of the above mentioned kind.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 08:30:46 PM by parsec »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2009, 09:20:17 PM »
Nice job, Parsec.  Where did you get the copypasta from?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2009, 09:22:00 PM »
fuck you asshole. I spent 2 hrs typing that.

?

d00gz

  • 638
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2009, 09:09:45 AM »
fuck you asshole. I spent 2 hrs typing that.

LOL

Nice work!

?

johny 5

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2009, 11:59:06 AM »
lmfao is that new made up math by FE believers? or is everyone thats read it just that umm dumb to not see its NONSENSE!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2009, 01:24:00 PM »
Gauss's law as it applies to gravitation is very real.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2009, 04:03:32 PM »
The earth is an infinite slab with a finite gravitational pull.

If we actually consider an infinite homogeneous slab with density ρ and total thickness H, then, due to symmetry, the graviational field must be directed along the normal of the slab and towards it. Similarly, we deduce that the intensity of the graviational field must be equal at all points lying in a plane parallel to the sides of the slab. This allows us to use Gauss' theorem to calculate the intensity of the graviational field g at any plane. The plane passing through the middle of the slab and being parallel to the sides is a plane of symmetry. We choose it as the yz plane of a coordinate system, as depicted in the following figure:


Then, the vector graviational field g has a direction along x when x>0 and along -x when x<0. Furthermore, the intensity of this field g depends only on x and g(-x) = g(x), which is in accordance to the above mentioned symmetry.

If we consider a prism with a basis parallel to the sides of the slab and height 2x, then, the flux of the gravitaitonal field through this Gaussian surface is:

Φ = -2*gA,

because the flux from the sides is zero, since the field is parallel to them, and, along the bases, the field intensity is constant and the field is perpendicular to them.

The total mass contained within this prism is:

M = ρA*2|x|, |x| <= H/2,

M = ρA*H, |x| > H/2.

According to Gauss' Law for the graviational field:

Φ = -4*π*G*M,

where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant, we can get:

g(x) = 4*π*G*ρ*|x|, |x|<= H/2

g(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*H, |x| > H/2

We see that the field intensity is zero in the middle of the slab and it rises linearly with height as we approach the surface, where it reaches the maximum value. After that, the field is constant. The maximum value is:

g0 = 2*π*G*ρ*H.

The graviational potential in this field V(x) is given by:

-g(x) = -dV/dx, x > 0,

g(x) = -dV/dx, x < 0.

We see that the derivative of the potential is an odd function of x (because g(x) was an even one and the extra minus sign coming from the change in direction). Therefore, the potential is an even function of x and it is sufficient to consider only the region x > 0. Furthermore, we choose a reference level V(0) = 0. Doing the integration and making sure the potential is continuous at x = H/2, we get:

V(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*x2, 0 < x < H/2,

V(x) = 2*π*G*ρ*H*x, H/2 < x.

Next, we want to find the total potential energy of the slab in its own gravitational field. But, since the slab is infinite, this is an infinite quantity. The potential energy per unit area, however, is a well defined quantity, because, the mass per unit area is finite. The mass in an infintesimal slab between (x, x + dx) is:

dm/A = ρ*dx

The potential energy of this element is simply V(x)*dm/A. Integrating with respect to x from -H/2 to H/2. We get:

U/A = π*G*ρ2*H3/6

Other things equal, the potential energy is positive and proportional to the cube of the thickness of the slab. We consider the following possibility: What if some material in the center of the slab liquifies and drips off the edges (the assumption of infinite slab is not a contradiction, since infinite means we can neglect edge effects, but a boundary, albeit moved to infinity is still present). Energy is required for this process, since it is a phase transition. But, by the liquid dripping off, the thickness decreases and the potential energy decreases. If the decrease in the potential energy is greater than the heat of melting, then this process is quite possible. If the thickness decreases by an infinitesimal amount dH, then the mass (per unit area) that is melted is:

dM/A = ρ*dH,

so the heat of melting (per unit area) is:

dQ/A = L*ρ*dH,

where L is the latent heat of melting (energy per unit mass). The decrease in potential energy is the differential of U/A with respect to H:

|dU|/A = π*G*ρ2*H2*dH/2.

The process we are describing is impossible if dQ/A >= |dU|/A, since there would not be enough energy for the phase transition to occur. This gives an upper bound of the slab's thickness:

H <= [2*L/(π*G*ρ)]1/2.

Other things equal, the gravitational field at the surface of the slab is proportional to its thickness. This means, there is a maximal value for the value of the gravitational field, since there is a maximal thickness. This is:

g0 <= 2*[2*π*G*ρ*L]1/2.

Why did we do this? Well, we can estimate the order of magnitude of ρ and L for known materials, and, knowning the exact value of g0 = 9.8 m/s2, we can get an estimate of the order of magnitude for the Universal gravitational constant. The density of the Earth's crust is not less than the density of water so ρ ~ 103 kg/m3. The latent heat of melting for most materials is of the order of magnitude 104 - 105 J/kg. This gives an order of magnitude estimate:
g02 ≲ 8*π*G*ρ*L,

Gg02/(8*π*ρ*L),

G ≳ 10-8 - 10-7 m3/(kg*s2).

This is several orders of magnitude greater than the experimental value of the Universal Gravitational constant G = 6.67 x 10-11 m3/(kg*s2)! This means that, assuming Newtonian Gravitation Law is a correct approximation to a high degree of accuracy, it is highly unlikely that the shape of the Earth is an infinite slab with finite thickness, strictly by considering issues of stability of such a system under perturbations of the above mentioned kind.

Give me a bit to read this, but it looks like it ties in with why I speculate towards the existence of the aetheroplane as well as continental expansion.

However, like I said, give me a bit to read through this.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

?

Epic Skeptic

  • 69
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009, 04:24:42 PM »
Well, Mr. Davis, even without doing the math, I can tell you that gravity, on a flat earth, would cause continental convergence, not expansion.  the denser rock would move towards the center of the flat surface, being the closest point on the plain to the center, which is the direction gravity would be pulling.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009, 04:30:52 PM »
Well, Mr. Davis, even without doing the math, I can tell you that gravity, on a flat earth, would cause continental convergence, not expansion.  the denser rock would move towards the center of the flat surface, being the closest point on the plain to the center, which is the direction gravity would be pulling.

Perhaps if gravity was the only force acting on the continents and it wasn't an infinite plane.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

?

Epic Skeptic

  • 69
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2009, 04:59:47 PM »
What forces would be causing continental exansion?

*

Its a Sphere

  • 1490
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2009, 05:05:33 PM »
What forces would be causing continental exansion?
Where is the center of an infinite plane, other than everywhere?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Epic Skeptic

  • 69
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2009, 05:40:48 PM »
which would leave us with equal force in all directions, not just outward force.  he alluded to another force causing the expansion, other than gravity, and I was wondering what it would be.

also, the other option than the center being everywhere would be that there is no center.

*

Its a Sphere

  • 1490
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2009, 06:10:16 PM »
which would leave us with equal force in all directions, not just outward force.  he alluded to another force causing the expansion, other than gravity, and I was wondering what it would be.

also, the other option than the center being everywhere would be that there is no center.

Then where would the movement be towards?

Quote
the denser rock would move towards the center of the flat surface, being the closest point on the plain to the center, which is the direction gravity would be pulling.

 
 
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Epic Skeptic

  • 69
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2009, 07:27:59 PM »
which would leave us with equal force in all directions, not just outward force.  he alluded to another force causing the expansion, other than gravity, and I was wondering what it would be.

also, the other option than the center being everywhere would be that there is no center.

Then where would the movement be towards?

Quote
the denser rock would move towards the center of the flat surface, being the closest point on the plain to the center, which is the direction gravity would be pulling.

 
When I said the were would be continental convergence, I wasn't referring to the infinite plane model.

Within the infinite plane model, I don't think there would be any drift at all, barring any forces besides gravity, and assuming the plain was the same thickness throughout same thickness throughout.  gravity would pull uniformly down.


 


*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2009, 09:05:13 PM »
Rocks are part of the Earth.  Even when you pick them up they shouldn't fall to the ground, yet they do.
The Earth accelerates up and meets the rock. From your reference frame, it appears that the rock is falling down.

Nice job, Parsec.  Where did you get the copypasta from?
Hm could be, although parsec has demonstrated fluency in mathematics before.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2009, 09:13:10 PM »
which would leave us with equal force in all directions, not just outward force.  he alluded to another force causing the expansion, other than gravity, and I was wondering what it would be.

also, the other option than the center being everywhere would be that there is no center.

Then where would the movement be towards?

Quote
the denser rock would move towards the center of the flat surface, being the closest point on the plain to the center, which is the direction gravity would be pulling.

 
When I said the were would be continental convergence, I wasn't referring to the infinite plane model.

Within the infinite plane model, I don't think there would be any drift at all, barring any forces besides gravity, and assuming the plain was the same thickness throughout same thickness throughout.  gravity would pull uniformly down.


 


Its not the same density throughout.  I'll post back with my response to parsec, I haven't had time yet to go over it.  Been taking the night easy heh.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2009, 09:20:56 PM »
lmfao is that new made up math by FE believers? or is everyone thats read it just that umm dumb to not see its NONSENSE!
If you read the derivation you would realize it appears pretty legit, though I admit I haven't finished checking it. However, if you just took the time to read the last paragraph he clearly shows that this is a proof against the infinite plane model.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2009, 04:37:19 PM »
Sorry Parsec, haven't looked at the math yet, have been taking a few days of relaxing.  I appreciate the time you put into it and will try to get to it in the next day or two.  I already see a few issues when I glanced at it a few days ago, but to be honest, I'm getting my drink on for a bit.
If you can't argue both si?des, you u;Dnderstad neither

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2009, 05:40:27 PM »
it's ok. i am in no hurry. :)

?

OptimusPrime

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2009, 02:48:52 AM »
Parsec - that is beautimus man. I may not be an FEer, but that is just beautimus. :)

As far as continental drift, I don't see why it couldn't be caused by the same principles as a Round Earth theory... is there anything denying a possible molten or shifting "core" to the innards of the Flat Earth? I don't see why this would not be a possibility anyway.

Anyway like I said, that's some really nice figgerin' and it's nice to see.

Win.

Take care,
- Optimus

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +1/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 04:20:11 PM »
yeah well, I challenged John Davis that this model is not stable in this thread.
Interesting. I hadn't read that thread. Your argument is that the rock inside would melt and be squeezed out the sides due to the great pressure. (And you actually have the numbers to back it up, which is refreshing.)

There are at least two issues with this theory. The first issue is that some change that would reduce the energy of the system may not occur, because to reach it one has to pass through a higher energy state. Stability depends only on being a local minimum of potential energy, not a global minimum. The transition you consider: rock melting, and then squeezing out the sides may represent a reduction in overall energy, but don't forget that igneous rock expands when it melts, so that melting already represents a significant increase in gravitational potential energy, as two giant slabs of rock above and below the center are pushed outwards. This would be a large potential energy barrier that the system would be unlikely to cross.
If the rock is to be liquified by pressure in the first place, then it's melting temperature must decrease with pressure. According to Clapeyron - Clausius equation, the slope of the line of phase equlibrium dp/dT = L/(?2 - ?1), where ?1/2 are the densities of the substance in phase 1 and 2 respectively and L is the latent heat of phase transition 1->2 per unit mass. For a solid liquid transition L > 0, so, in order that dp/dT < 0, we must have ?2 < ?1, meaning that the liquid has actually higher density than the solid. This is similar to the case of water.
...and is a very unusual property of water. I'm assuming that in the FE model, the Earth would be made of something similar to what we observe in the Earth's crust: basalt, granite, and other igneous rock, all of which expand when they melt.

Quote
So, if the process of melting occurs, the potential energy barrier you speak of does not exist.
...and if the Earth is made out of several plausible materials, the potential barrier does exist, and your instability claim is invalid.

Quote
The second issue is that, even assuming the rock inside would melt and become liquid, if it is to "squeeze out the sides," (squeeze out towards the edge at infinity, thinning the slab) there must be a force in some direction pushing the molten rock in some direction, towards the edge at infinity. But what direction is this force pointing in? Locally, each little bit of molten rock is surrounded by many other bits of molten rock pushing in from all sides, at least initially at uniform density, and so feels no net force. With actual physical edges, the bits of rock at the edges only feel force pressing in from three sides, so might be squeezed out, but with no actual edges, each bit of rock feels no force, doesn't move, and thus continues to feel no force and not move. So the transition you describe cannot occur.
Remember Pascal's Law for pressure in fluids.
...which is in gross violation of the law of relativity. Of course, for small amounts of reasonably incompressible fluids, it's a good close approximation to the truth, but we're talking about an infinite frakking plane here. Approximating our liquid as incompressible is just not going to cut it. In any case, I don't see how this answers my objection.

Quote
Also, note that if, instead of an infinite slab, we had an extremely wide but finite cylinder of rock 6000 or so kilometers thick, your argument would lead us to predict instability in exactly the wrong direction (that the cylinder should want to get thinner and wider, not collapse into a sphere). This isn't necessarily a flaw in the argument, but it suggests that the argument is rather fishy.
wat?
I expanded this comment after you read it; I'm not sure if you saw the expanded version. I explained that, "Actually what's going on there is that in the finite case, while edge pressure effects make it possible for molten rock to squeeze out on all sides, edge gravity effects more than cancel this out." Anyways, if you have a more specific comment than "wat?" I'll be happy to respond.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:26:57 PM by skeptical scientist »
-David
E pur si muove!

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2009, 04:26:40 PM »
Actually, the lowering of melting temperature with pressure is not important. The extra volume gets squeezed out from the sides, so this instability is quite relevant.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +1/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2009, 04:33:45 PM »
Actually, the lowering of melting temperature with pressure is not important. The extra volume gets squeezed out from the sides, so this instability is quite relevant.
What sides? If we're talking about an infinite plane, there are no sides. If we're talking about an extremely wide finite cylinder, you need to take edge effects of gravity into account, which are more than enough to cancel out the pressure.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Why does a rock fall, according to FET?
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2009, 04:41:06 PM »
Edge effects are important in a peripheral region of the order of the thickness of the slab. The volume of this slab is (when the radius of the cylinder R is finite, but much bigger than the thickness H) approximately 2*π*R*H2, while the volume of the whole cylinder is R2*π*H, so the relative ratio of the two volumes is 2*H/R << 1. Hence, edge effects are negligible for a radius much bigger than the thickness of the slab.