Neutronium

Hi,

>Lucio wrote:
>Though I can see that a micro black hole inside an orb would eventually suck
>up the whole thing, I can't see why the same would happen with a glob of
>neutronium. Would you detail this, please?

Neutronium is only stable in an intense gravitational field. A field so
intense that it crushes all elements out of existance and forms a neutron
star. I'm NOT referring to a black hole, which crushes matter out of
existance.

To remove a fragment from a neutron star you have to maintain that intense
gravitational field, if you want the fragment to remain stable. Place that
fragment, and it's gravitational field, anywhere near a planet or space
settlement and it will crush the entire thing out of existance. Remove the
intense gravitational field and the neutronium will become unstable. The
neutrons will decay into protons which will form elements. So your teaspoon
of neutronium that weighs as much as a mountain will suddenly turn into a
mountain. A superheated mountain of matter, neutrons, electrons and
neutrinos.

All of this is assuming you're capable of removing a fragment from a
neutron star. Which is still way too science fiction for practical
consideration.

>Lucio wrote:
>And, if neutronium is a problem for some reason, you may try Strange Matter

It's clear your understanding of Quantum physics and radioactive decay is
minimal. Perhaps you should learn more about these fields before relying on
them to argue a practical application of science fiction theories.

>Andy wrote:
>Ok, so if the atmosphere's deficient in bulk then get them to live in a
>hab.

That's not the point of terraforming.

>Andy wrote:
>You and I would probably agree that it's an insane and specious idea using
>current technology. Care to suggest how we might (for example) /reasonably/
>power the processes needed to liquify one Earth atmosphere?

I wouldn't say "insane". I'd say "logistically inefficient" LOL
Unfortunately the only high-energy source available is nuclear fision,
which I really dont like the idea of using. It's currently available and
already proved usable in space environments.

>Andy wrote:
>The assumption that eccentric orbits automatically leads to orbits that impact
>the atmosphere (your statement) is just plain wrong.

I didn't say it did. I said the force from the solar reflection will
eventually push the object into the atmosphere. Until it does, it may form
an eccentric orbit. I'm saying it's the force of refelction that will push
it into the atmosphere, not the eccentric orbit. Remember the solar
"constant" is slightly greater on the sun-side of the planet than on the
dark side, because it is further away from the sun.

>Andy wrote:
>Sudden? 90 atmospheres? What sort of timeframe is this technology supposed
>to exist in?

A millenia should be enough.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html