Recent content by DarkStar42

ok, there's probably next to nothing in the idea...

ok so I may well have jumped the gun, but is there still something to the idea? So maybe the shell theorem wouldn't apply exactly, but just enough to cause a binary system, to need to have two different sized planets?

yes,if I'm right; in the process of the formation of a binary planet system, from dust, one of the planets, would have to be smaller than the other, by some factor, I would guess.

or maybe I'm right(probably not...)...surely if the shell theorem holds for a whole sphere, it would also hold for a symmetrical two body system...?

yes, I think you're correct...I've jumped the gun again...:cry:

I meant two planets of the same mass and make up(ideally). take these two binary planets, of equal construction(green+red). In the shell theorem, the green part of the planet, would have no gravitational pull on the red part of the planet, so there is nothing to hold the red part on...and so on.

I have read a bit from the book Cycles of Time(Penrose), and I wondered whether an increase in entropy in one part of the Universe, lead to a decrease in entropy in other parts, and maybe the universe's expansion is an attempt by the Universe to keep entropy at the same level. And eventually you...

Would the shell theorem prevent a binary planet system, with two ideally equal masses, structure etc?

I thought Hawking Radiation, Hawking concluded, contained no, or too little, information from inside the event horizon..?

and if you take a collapsing star, the singularity would form at the centre, right? And the event horizon would expand from there as the star fell into it.. But why would a singularity form at all? As time dilation rose, then the matter compressing in the area would rise, slowing compression. I...

depends whether the 'body of science' is an Egyptian pyramid or a space elevator..

some other collapsed object.

a distant observer can see more than 50% of the neutron star's surface.

Take a neutron star, its surface will be gravitationally self magnified so that it looks bigger to the distant observer, than it 'really' is, plus you can see some of the rear facing surface. If you take the centre of the neutron star, then this process must go on there also, although unseen...

the one in post #15.