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