actually, the more elastic something is, the more it forms a ball under its own gravity as well as surface tension. (ie, fluids, even if small enough to not have gravity of their own, will still pull into a sphere in zero g from surface tension. its the smallest volume to surface area ratio, smallest amount of energy required to keep the shape.
something thats too too solid wont spherize. (its why certain orbiting bodies are shphereoid that shoundt be for their mass, they are actually collections of small rocks and dust, not solid rock. On 11/28/06, RC Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jones wrote.. Real science based on 'taking a risk' with some degree of educated-speculation, instead of real-fluff based on total mainstream obeisance. Consequently, we need to add another layer of complication. See ... until fairly recently ... we were totally unaware of this "snow-ball" earth situation and like most new findings - it raised more problems than it solved. But oxygen somehow appeared anyway, from putative snowball-earth, as it melted. How did this transpire and how did organisms evolve oxygen tolerance? Short answer: HOOH. Howdy Jones, Where would we be without a after thankgiving portion of delicious " grits" as served by the " Jones"??? " Obeisance is right out of his vocabulary <grin>. My ole pal, the geologist and I could never agree on anything including the earth was round or flat. I considered the premise the earth was once completely sheathed in an ice cover so massive that the pressure " increased " the heat of the core. Why so? Assuming it is now in a near fluid state... would it have to been rather non-elastic in order for the mass to form the ball ?? Hmmm. Are earthquakes "recent" events in time and are they evidence of this massive release of weight represented by melting of the ice sheath? Mix hydrogen peroxide and oxone... what is the reaction from these two oxidants? Richard
-- That which yields isn't always weak.
