Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Disproving Newton's Hollow Sphere Theorem

No one gets the Nobel Prize for this ...
Even commonsense tells you that forces will balance out at the center IF there is no external force...

The point is, the Sphere theorem claims the forces balance out *everywhere*, not just at the centre.
Who cares about a prize from the guy who invented explosives that maim children?

it is commonsensical to say that forces will balance out everywhere because force is not only dependent on the geometry but also on mass and in uniform sphere they balance out.

Ideally the graph should be flat at zero from inside shell wall left to inside shell wall right, full force on the outside surface of the shells directed towards the center on the outside and decreasing with the inverse square of the distance as one moves away from the sphere so that at 2 radii there is 1/4 the force directed towards the center. Does everyone agree this far?

Aloha, Charlie

Cars maim children. Baseballs maim children. Swings and swimming pools maim children.

When Alfred Nobel invented a safer way of transporting and using nitro, he was making the world a safer place. He wasn't working for the military. His own brother had died in a nitro explosion and his efforts at civil engineering projects were devoted to saving the lives of those people.

A complex Dyson sphere consisting of three thin coradial shells holding 127 equal spherical stationary planets in a coradial spherical constellation would have several gravitational zones. The structure is inviting for analysis with the inner shell tangent to the innermost point of the planets, the middle shell intersecting the planets at their center (with solid / solid overlap), the outer shell tangent to the outermost point of the planets.

The inside surface of the innermost shell exactly between the planets where the planets and shell have equal gravitational contribution would have a slight gravitational pull directed towards the center of the construct because this position has balanced influence from the shells and other planets but lacks the upwards pull of a local planet. There no lateral gravitation here because of symmetry but stability is neutral so an object that is nearer a local planet will be drawn towards it. Directly under the planet there will be gravitational force directed upwards towards the center of the planet and away from the complexes' center which at this special point are in the same direction. The upwards force is much less than it would be if the planet was by itself due to the influence of the rest of the construct.

The few positions just analyzed were very special. If you followed me well than I can trust the analysis of other points to you as you wish.

Aloha, Charlie

As far as inventions are concerned my policy has been simple .. dont criticise them until they are proved harmful...because our own fear of new technology might result in our extinction..
Let us hope that no technology goes against us.

The only sensible response is to thank you for your factual correction.

I still don't want any 'prizes'. Prizes are for kids who open krackerjack bags or dig into cereal boxes.

It's admirable that you don't want prizes.

But prizes and awards, I think, are important, because they have the potential to help society remember what is important. The Turing prize, the Field Medal, the Nobel prize ... they honor something that is genuinely praiseworthy.

It's not perfect. Should a woman have shared the nobel with Crick and Watson? Perhaps. Were all of the winners for the transistor deserving? Maybe not.

Were there things that were accomplishments that ought better to have been recognized? I don't know.

It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be.

By the way, I think drunk drivers and landmines maim more children than baseballs and swings.

That's true. But landmines aren't made of dynamite.

Some useful information at last.