<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Infanticide</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/</link>
	<description>An Orions' Arm E-zine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:36:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/comment-page-1/#comment-38536</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/#comment-38536</guid>
		<description>Newton&#039;s approximation for spherically symmetric bodies allows us to treat the gravity of that body as if it were coming from a point at the center.

However, removing the shells of matter above a given point significantly reduces the gravitational potential, since mass is proportional to volume which grows as r^3 in 3-space.

Indeed, for n-dimensional spheres, most of the volume lies near the surface. Since mass is proportional to volume, and gravity is proportional to mass, this is accurate from this perspective: without the layers above, the gravity would not be as large.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Newton&#8217;s approximation for spherically symmetric bodies allows us to treat the gravity of that body as if it were coming from a point at the center.</p>
<p>However, removing the shells of matter above a given point significantly reduces the gravitational potential, since mass is proportional to volume which grows as r^3 in 3-space.</p>
<p>Indeed, for n-dimensional spheres, most of the volume lies near the surface. Since mass is proportional to volume, and gravity is proportional to mass, this is accurate from this perspective: without the layers above, the gravity would not be as large.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: selden</title>
		<link>http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/comment-page-1/#comment-32393</link>
		<dc:creator>selden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.voicesoa.net/infanticide/#comment-32393</guid>
		<description>A minor quibble: at the beginning:
&quot;constrained by the gravity of thousands of kilometers of dense hydrogen above it.&quot; isn&#039;t right. In a spherical body, like a gas giant, gravitational forces are due to the layers below. The gravitational pull from layers above cancels out. Of course, there&#039;s plenty of pressure due to the layers above.

s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A minor quibble: at the beginning:<br />
&#8220;constrained by the gravity of thousands of kilometers of dense hydrogen above it.&#8221; isn&#8217;t right. In a spherical body, like a gas giant, gravitational forces are due to the layers below. The gravitational pull from layers above cancels out. Of course, there&#8217;s plenty of pressure due to the layers above.</p>
<p>s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
