a hole in the earth!

[raid1000]

if i had drilled a hole from one tip down the center and exit on the other side of the earth and throw something with godly armor (really tough material) in that hole, what would happen to that something when it reaches the center of the earth? Will it keep falling all the way to the other side? or will it just float in the center of the earth?
(or it will open a gate into Outland! MWAHAHAHAHA)

 

[xxdingo93xx]

The object will just fall into the middle of earth, float there and melt away.

 

[Paladon]

It's probably staying in the center.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

It will stay in the centre because of gravity.

 

[Wraithling]

It will fall down continuously until it reached the center gravity, where it will remain, and then it will slowly turn into zogold (a mineral yet to exist).

 

[Handycombinder]

It will fly back to you

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

It'll just stay in the core and probably melt instantly.

What kind of question is this?

 

[Nichita_00]

It won't melt

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Might not, depending on the material, but most things melt at such high temperatures. Estimates are at about 3000 to 5000 Celcius.

 

[Mechanical007]

Of course Its not going to melt, this material is covered 10 times the strength as 100 tanks Panzer.

 

[Textor]

exact the same question i asked my ages ... but in my question a human jumped into the hole. And i think it would fly in the center of earth for ever trapped in the center of earth...

 

[Nichita_00]

if i had drilled a hole from one tip down the center and exit on the other side of the earth and throw something with godly armor (really tough material) in that hole, what would happen to that something when it reaches the center of the earth? Will it keep falling all the way to the other side? or will it just float in the center of the earth?
(or it will open a gate into Outland! MWAHAHAHAHA)

The reason it won't melt.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I assumed it was an already known material.

This is retarded. We're answering a fool's question seriously.

 

[-JonNny]

If its really divine and we take a look at physics it should (without friction) transfer all its on-load energy (is that the right english word? :O) into kinetic energy and speed up while gravity decreases with coming near the the centre
at this point it would have maximum speed and passes the cntre flying out on the other side of the earth reaching exactly the same distance to the centre it had before
if noone would catch it it would fly back again and again

but.. in this case.. f*ck physics..

 

[HFR]

It will melt.

 

[Super-Sheep]

The point of the thread was that it wouldn't melt.

 

[Pyramidhe@d]

it will oscillate up and down until it stops in the dead centre
that is theoretically if you somehow kept the hole from collapsing due to earth's gravitational force and if you kept the magma under the earth from oozing into the hole

 

[HFR]

Ok, it will not melt. Instead, it will just disappear somewhere near the nucleus.

 

[Hakeem]

Falling that incredible distance, it will inevitably have a lot of momentum. This means that it wont stop at the center. It will continue on after that, the only question is how much. If the hole were anything other than a vacuum, the friction would cause it to oscillate less each time, like a bouncing ball, eventually coming to rest at the lowest point of gravity. What you might not expect, is that it would then drift towards one side of the wall. The Earth is not homogeneous, so the exact center of gravity of the Earth would most likely be constantly shifting.

If the tunnel were a perfect vacuum through the exact center of mass, and the object was dropped with its center of mass coinciding with this line, then theoretically, it would oscillate perfectly between two points. While this would technically be perpetual motion, it would not be usable. Any attempt to harvest energy would result in friction, causing the object to oscillate less each time.

For an alternate perspective, imagine dropping a giant ring around the Earth. The Earth does not fall into the ring, but instead the ring falls around the Earth.

 

[Mulgrim]

if it melts or not depends on how "godly strong" said item is, but i doubt an item exists to not be melted by the core of the Earth, an interesting question though; How will this hole affect the planet? would it expand?

 

[xRikkux]

i say that item falls all the way through and smacks the dude looking down the hole wondering how the hell that hole got there in the first place! =D

 

[Mulgrim]

ingenious!!!

 

[PurplePoot]

if it melts or not depends on how "godly strong" said item is, but i doubt an item exists to not be melted by the core of the Earth, an interesting question though; How will this hole affect the planet? would it expand?

Then you doubt wrong. It isn't that hot, and the high pressure really raises melting and boiling points.

Also, the people who say that it will stay at the centre have a disturbingly bad knowledge of basic physics.

Also, this is a silly question as the mass distribution of the earth is nowhere near uniform.

Also, the toughness of the enveloping material does not affect its melting point.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Firstly, you can not drill wholes through liquids (which rock basicaly is at that pressure).
This means the whole would explode with lava spewing up as the walls of it can not withstand the pressure of the rock.

Secondly it would probably boble up and down as there is no gravity in the center of the earth so it would start to move away from the centre and be pulled down. This is because mass produces gravity and in the centre of the earth the mass all around is the the same so the gravity force is ballenced (no gravity). Thus it will hit the centre of the earth with a high velocity so it will continue going away till it starts to fall towards the centre again as there is nothing to stop it from moving.

 

[Velmarshal]

If its really divine and we take a look at physics it should (without friction) transfer all its on-load energy (is that the right english word? :O) into kinetic energy and speed up while gravity decreases with coming near the the centre
at this point it would have maximum speed and passes the cntre flying out on the other side of the earth reaching exactly the same distance to the centre it had before
if noone would catch it it would fly back again and again

Quoted for truth. All others can go back to the kindergarten, now.

 

[PurplePoot]

Quoted for truth. All others can go back to the kindergarten, now.

Quoted for falsehood; the mass distribution of the earth is not uniform as I already mentioned above.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Not to mention you ignore friction, which is silly.

 

[Devine]

I think (for what it's worth) that the object would move throught the centre the whole time like up and down untill it stands still in the centre. Although I have no clue what I'm talking about and yes, you can drill a hole in milk ... so why not in the core? :3 That's total BS D;

 

[raid1000]

another question?
why is it so damn hot in the center of the earth? (don't like for not knowing shit? i am a 6 year old and i dont know so give me an answer)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It's hot because the Earth used to be a big ball of liquid hot magma. Compare the Earth to a pie, where the crust and the outside have cooled, but the inside is still gooey and warm.

 

[Deathcom3s]

Alright guys, keep the discussion to the topic...

~Thread Cleaned

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

If its really divine and we take a look at physics it should (without friction) transfer all its on-load energy (is that the right english word? :O) into kinetic energy and speed up while gravity decreases with coming near the the centre
at this point it would have maximum speed and passes the cntre flying out on the other side of the earth reaching exactly the same distance to the centre it had before
if noone would catch it it would fly back again and again

but.. in this case.. f*ck physics..

Well that's not correct.

First: kinetic energy would be the energy it first obtained through descent by that of gravitational pull and it would stay the same if there was no interference or if the gravitational pull would not increase.

Second: Gravity increases as you go deeper into the Earths core till it peeks at the core mantle boundary, which is right in the middle of the earths silicate mantle and its liquid iron-nickel outer core.

Third: An objects speed would not increase if gravity decreases. That makes no sense bro. It would go into a state of free-fall with the kinetic enegry pushing it.

Fourth: Earths gravitational pull would keep the same from the core mantle boundary till it hit the center, which would make it 0 gravitational pull. From the center

Now you got the last part correct. Because of zero gravitational pull in the center of the earth you would be wieghtless or the object you throw in there and its kinetic enegry would push it right through the otherside. If no one grabs it, it would continue to go back and forth.


Now, whats wrong with this question is that:

The inner core is what has heat and produces heat for the Earth. It is partialy solid iron-nickel, and is as hot as the sun. While the outer core is a liquid iron-nickel form.

For some one to drill to, lets just say the center, he would need to have produced some sort of mineral that is resistant to that type of heat which shall keep it from melting so he could keep drilling to teh other side.

Doing so would most likely start releasing all the heat contained in the Earths core making all living life extinct as well as disrupting its magnetic field which would mean everything would go flying off in the direction the Earth was rotating.


This is a total dumb question by the way.

 

[HINDYhat]

First: kinetic energy would be the energy it first obtained through descent by that of gravitational pull and it would stay the same if there was no interference or if the gravitational pull would not increase.

This statement makes so little sense...
Kinetic energy in this situation = m*v². How in the hell could that 'stay the same'? v constantly changes. And what are you on about, with the gravitational pull increasing?

Second: Gravity increases as you go deeper into the Earths core till it peeks at the core mantle boundary, which is right in the middle of the earths silicate mantle and its liquid iron-nickel outer core.

Wrong again. Gravity actually decreases as you go deeper towards the center of the Earth. Think about it this way: each tiny particle on Earth exerts a gravitational pull on the ball. From outside the Earth, it would seem as if it's being pulled towards the center of the Earth, with an acceleration inversely proportional to the distance². From inside the Earth, though, now it's being pulled apart from the sides, the front and the back. If the Earth were a uniform sphere, then at its center, there would be an equal amount of tiny particles everywhere around the ball, so the net force exerted on it would be 0.

Third: An objects speed would not increase if gravity decreases. That makes no sense bro. It would go into a state of free-fall with the kinetic enegry pushing it.

Uh yes it makes sense. Think about this: when you're on Earth, you accelerate towards the center at 9.81 m/s². So, your speed increases. On the moon, however, you'd accelerate towards its center at 1.62 m/s². Your speed still increases, but at a slower rate. Less gravity still means acceleration.

Now you got the last part correct. Because of zero gravitational pull in the center of the earth you would be wieghtless or the object you throw in there and its kinetic enegry would push it right through the otherside. If no one grabs it, it would continue to go back and forth.

... So you're saying that "Gravity increases as you go deeper into the Earths core" but there is "zero gravitational pull in the center of the earth you would be wieghtless"???

As for your second point, this is a theoretical physics question. Who cares if it's impossible or not? The maker of this thread knew that it was impossible already, and asked a theoretical question. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact those often stem interesting answers and are used to prove greater points.

 

[Kwah]

physX would happen.

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

This statement makes so little sense...
Kinetic energy in this situation = m*v². How in the hell could that 'stay the same'? v constantly changes. And what are you on about, with the gravitational pull increasing?

Ok, so we have a divine object thrown into this whole stretching form one side to the other. I said :

First: kinetic energy would be the energy it first obtained through descent by that of gravitational pull and it would stay the same if there was no interference or if the gravitational pull would not increase.

It would stay the same if there was no interference of if the gravitational pull of earth would not increase from the begining of it decent. Meaning I said the same thing you said. It would change if there were variables put into the equation.

Wrong again. Gravity actually decreases as you go deeper towards the center of the Earth. Think about it this way: each tiny particle on Earth exerts a gravitational pull on the ball. From outside the Earth, it would seem as if it's being pulled towards the center of the Earth, with an acceleration inversely proportional to the distance². From inside the Earth, though, now it's being pulled apart from the sides, the front and the back. If the Earth were a uniform sphere, then at its center, there would be an equal amount of tiny particles everywhere around the ball, so the net force exerted on it would be 0.

i said: Second: Gravity increases as you go deeper into the Earths core till it peeks at the core mantle boundary, which is right in the middle of the earths silicate mantle and its liquid iron-nickel outer core.

So your telling me, that earths gravity increases as you go higher? and decreases as you go lower? That's not correct. You have 9.8 m/s ^2 at the crust and it increases to 10. something on the mantle boundary. Meaning it increases from 9 to 10 something in its gravitational pull on something.

I understand about it being pulled apart from the sides. I didn't think about that. So your correct about that. My logic was flawed on that one. Some how I missed it that it would be pulled from all sides. Well from the left and right, not from the top where it has been thrown into the whole. But it wouldn't be 0, as it is still being pulled as it gets to the boundary, only reaching net 0 when it is in the exact center. Wouldn't it?

Uh yes it makes sense. Think about this: when you're on Earth, you accelerate towards the center at 9.81 m/s². So, your speed increases. On the moon, however, you'd accelerate towards its center at 1.62 m/s². Your speed still increases, but at a slower rate. Less gravity still means acceleration.

I said:
Third: An objects speed would not increase if gravity decreases. That makes no sense bro. It would go into a state of free-fall with the kinetic enegry pushing it.

Yea your right about that, but I was meaning that he said gravity decreases as you go deaper into the center of the earth which is not correct.

... So you're saying that "Gravity increases as you go deeper into the Earths core" but there is "zero gravitational pull in the center of the earth you would be wieghtless"???

The gravitational field peaks within the Earth at the core mantle boundary where it is 10.7 m/s^2. It would be 0, because the gravitational forces would be pulling on the object from all sides canceling it out. making the net force 0 then. Not before.



Am awaiting your reply.

 

[PurplePoot]

I will state again that the mass distribution of the earth is not uniforn and thus there is no easy way to describe where and how gravity would be the highest. In a theoretical perfect object (spherical symmetry), it would decrease as you entered it though.

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

I will state again that the mass distribution of the earth is not uniforn and thus there is no easy way to describe where and how gravity would be the highest. In a theoretical perfect object (spherical symmetry), it would decrease as you entered it though.

Ok your right. If it was a sphere i would decrease until 0. but in reality the gravity field go up at the core mantle boundary up to 10.7. And as you would travel continuasly to the center, at the center you would be close to 0 gravity as you would be pulled from all sides.

Now is that plausible?

 

[Belgarath]

According to my year 9 science teacher who was a crazy but extremely intelligent fucker, it would 'bounce' back and forth from one entrance of the hole to the other with extreme speeds

 

[HINDYhat]

It would stay the same if there was no interference of if the gravitational pull of earth would not increase from the begining of it decent. Meaning I said the same thing you said. It would change if there were variables put into the equation.

Okay then, I'll write out an expression to show you how kinetic energy varies. The acceleration inside the solid Earth sphere would follow this equation:
F = mGM_Er/r_E³
Where F : The force acting on the ball
m : the mass of the ball
M_E : The mass of the Earth
r : the ball's position as a distance from the center of the Earth
r_E : the radius of the Earth
To find the gravitational potential, I integrate w.r.t. r:
U = mGM_Er²/2*r_E³
Where U : Gravitational potential energy
Energy is conserved. Thus, since the ball begins with 0 kinetic energy at release, the kinetic energy at any point can be determined using the following equation:
U_i = U_f + K_f
mGM_Er_E²/2*r_E³ = mGM_Er_f²/2*r_E³ + K
(r_E² - r_f²)*mGM_E/2*r_E³ = K
Doesn't look so 'the same' to me.
You can try some values for r_f if you want. For example, at r_E, K = 0. At r_f = 0 (the center of the Earth), then all potential energy has been transferred to kinetic energy. Anyway, I've probably lost you by now, and I don't even know why I'm explaining this, so I guess this paragraph is OVER!

So your telling me, that earths gravity increases as you go higher? and decreases as you go lower? That's not correct. You have 9.8 m/s ^2 at the crust and it increases to 10. something on the mantle boundary. Meaning it increases from 9 to 10 something in its gravitational pull on something.

If you're inside the sphere, then it increases as you approach the surface, and decreases as you approach the center. If you're outside the sphere, then it increases as you approach the surface, and decreases as you move away from it. What the hell are you talking about? D;

[...] only reaching net 0 when it is in the exact center. Wouldn't it?

Exactly.

Yea your right about that, but I was meaning that he said gravity decreases as you go deaper into the center of the earth which is not correct.

It IS correct.

Where did you read about this 10.7 m/s² acceleration? I can provide you with a proof about gravity being linearly dependent on distance inside a solid sphere, though, if you really want it.

[signs up for the Most Uselessly Descriptive Post Of The Year award]

 

[PurplePoot]

Ok your right. If it was a sphere i would decrease until 0. but in reality the gravity field go up at the core mantle boundary up to 10.7. And as you would travel continuasly to the center, at the center you would be close to 0 gravity as you would be pulled from all sides.

Now is that plausible?

No, because the mass distribution is not uniform. Can you people even read?

--

The argument is a theoretical one because we already established long ago that using the real stats is both pointless and implausible.

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

If you're inside the sphere, then it increases as you approach the surface, and decreases as you approach the center. If you're outside the sphere, then it increases as you approach the surface, and decreases as you move away from it. What the hell are you talking about? D;

i said:
So your telling me, that earths gravity increases as you go higher? and decreases as you go lower? That's not correct.

When I said that I meant if I was outside the earths inside. As if I was on the crust. I guess u though I ment the inside.

Also I sent you a comment about that 10.7 m/s bs. Idk i thought it was factual guess not. idk.

Also idk y im continuing this, especially cause its pretty much agreed on the 10.7m/s is bs by me so there not point arguing. Although idk how kinetic enegry even got involved in this conversation.....

Any way, mind helping me out?

Lost scientific calucater soo
I got this much so far:

No, because the mass distribution is not uniform. Can you people even read?

Ok well if it was uniform it would be then theoretically 0 gravity in the center because gravity would cancel itself out and you would be wieghtless. Only if the earth was uniform in size. Which it is not so it does not have 0 gravity at the center, but it would have a low percentage of gravity in the center.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

if i had drilled a hole from one tip down the center and exit on the other side of the earth and throw something with godly armor (really tough material) in that hole, what would happen to that something when it reaches the center of the earth? Will it keep falling all the way to the other side? or will it just float in the center of the earth?
(or it will open a gate into Outland! MWAHAHAHAHA)

I think everyone needs to read the original post again.

Got it? Great. Continue, this is actually interesting.

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

lol this topic has to be the most off topic topic to ever go off topic in the hive workshop history lol. Im done with this topic. peace.

 

[HINDYhat]

About the 10.7 thing, I'll read up on it. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't something you were pulling out of your ass.

Also, I messed up. Kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v², not m*v²
Also, there's a difference between G and g
g = 9.81 m/s²
G = 6.67*10^-11
I'd suggest you change all of your units to S.I. units before doing any calculations though (mass in kilograms, distance in meters). Here's the numbers I've got, roughly:
6.25*10⁷ - 1.54*10^-6*r² = v²

EDIT: Mhm, I see what you meant about the 10.7 m/s² acceleration. This is true, but nonetheless, the object would still oscillate through the hole in the same manner. My example was only given to explain how kinetic energy varies, and also because I was bored to death.

 

[NoAmmoSrry]

Lol yea I was bored so i started to do the calculations lmao, um so then is 10.7 gravity at the boundary correct?

 

[HINDYhat]

It seems to be, not that that really adds anything to the initial discussion, but yeah it makes sense.

 

[raid1000]

thats the problem with thsese threads
i just wanted a simple answer like it will stay there or it will bounce not physix and shit. Apparently some people do not like simple answers

 

[Deathcom3s]

thats the problem with thsese threads
i just wanted a simple answer like it will stay there or it will bounce not physix and shit. Apparently some people do not like simple answers

The question can't really be answered with a simple question.

That's physics for you.

 

[HINDYhat]

It has already been answered. Right now we're just going about explaining stuff for shits and giggles.

 

[manstie]

But WAIT! It would be impossible for a hole to be drilled (I'm talking gravity-stuff here, not just because we can't dig the hole.) because as soon as we get far down the immense pressure will collapse the hole in!