Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ccvaxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: 2010 (Oh no, not again) Message-ID: <22100030@ccvaxa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 00:25:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.22100030 Posted: Mon Jan 28 00:25:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 05:35:38 EST References: <288@topaz.UUCP> Lines: 19 Nf-ID: #R:topaz:-28800:ccvaxa:22100030:000:959 Nf-From: ccvaxa!preece Jan 20 23:25:00 1985 > ... Consider this- a power that has the ability to > create stars should also have the power to shield selected objects > from being annihilated by the event. ---------- Why? My astrophysical knowledge is lamentably thin, but I can imagine that there might be a simple way of taking an object like Jupiter, which is like a star in many respects, and adding mass and perhaps changing the element ratios a little to kick it over a threshold and ignite it. Why would that imply the ability to shield a fragile object that would be inside the surface of the resulting star? The processes involved in the former operation could be very slow moving (perhaps they'd been assembling mass since the first monolith was deposited for early man's benefit), the shielding operation is entirely different -- requiring rapid response and delicate operations. The only physical operations we see are on a fairly gross scale. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece