Talk:Globus Cassus

message: "The largest structure that could be built using known materials is no more than two thousand kilometers in diameter, using carbon nanotube fibre"
I'm not surprised that this was unreferenced. As far as I know, no-one has ever made such a massive nanotube structure, so there would undoubtedly be unforseen problems building one this size. The solutions to the problems might even inspire a new way of building a structure more than 2000km in diameter...
I strongly suspect that the quote is just a lot of hot air anyway. It certainly didn't add anything to my understanding of the article! 212.137.27.116 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: This is an interesting (and human) version of the vessel in Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama.
*You sure? Is this supposed to actually go anywhere? I get the impression that it's supposed to stay in the solar system.Zafiroblue05 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama is also about a thousand times smaller.  —Tamfang 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rama 

message: Would the original author redraft this article and clarify the construction methods for GC? It may be his/her use of english, but I cannot see how sunlight enters "diagonal" openings. Perhaps an image would help. --die Baumfabrik 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am not the original author I did find an image for it here and uploaded it. Fosnez 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think something along these lines needs to be included in the article. I've started a feasibility section to get the ball rolling on this one, though it may need a bit of tidying up. — jammycakes (t) 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: When reading this article one thing I was looking for which was never explained was
why the hell would you want to turn the planet inside out?
Did the creator of the Globus Cassus offer a reason, or was this a "why the hell not" proposition?--DCAnderson 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would greatly increase the area of habitable land. —Keenan Pepper 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming *any* of it would be habitable. :p zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a "Reasons for" section 

message: Being the Earth/World's antipode in many aspects, Globus Cassus acts as a philosophical model for the opposite-based description of the Earth/World and as a tool to understand the World's real functioning processes.
This sentence doesn't actually mean anything. It has no semantic value. It conveys no coherent point. It's like an HVAC technician talking about thermatic heat diffusors or an army cartographer talking about spare grid squares. Whoever wrote this is talking out of his/her ass. --76.224.64.68 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wtfbbq 

message: It depicts Globus Cassus as M&M shaped, and the triangular faces don't line up at all the way they should.  Whoever made it had no concept of how multiview drawings work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UndZiggy (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That picture needs to be replaced 

message: I've added a couple of references to the article, but it needs a better one for the Leipzig Book Fair -- all I could find on Google was a link to the Globus Cassus website itself. Can anyone come up with a reliable secondary source (preferably online, though a dead tree one will do fine) for this? Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leipzig Book Fair 

message: Once again, the information given in the German article differs from that given in the English article. The German article states, that sunlight would enter through eight windows, whereas the English article says, that sunlight enters through two windows. Articles for other languages probably tell different numbers of windows too. Pardon my French, but WTF? White rotten rabbit (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article vs. English article 

message: I may be missing something obvious here, but if the sphere is supposed to be stabilized by centrifugal forces, what will stabilize it at the poles?
While it's conceivable to have a ring of material being stabilized by spinning, it's not possible to rotate a sphere in all directions simultaneously, thus a sphere will always have to have poles which stand still. The whole gravitational forces of the rest of the planet will draw these poles towards the center of the sphere and thus quite quickly crush the whole structure.
A different problem with the concept is that of the conservation of angular momentum. Since the anuglar momentum of Earth must remain pretty much constant, dragging most of the planet matter further outward will lead to a reduction of rotational velocity, and it probably won't be possible (rough calculations pending) to adapt the rotational rate to attain enough centrifugal forces for artificial gravity.
Should these concerns be included? --Syzygy (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar collapse immanent? 

message: Where do you get the energy to lift the entire mass of Earth up to 85,000 km? .froth. (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Globus Cassus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230949/http://www.designboom.com/snapshots/venice04/ch.html to http://www.designboom.com/snapshots/venice04/ch.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230949/http://www.designboom.com/snapshots/venice04/ch.html to http://www.designboom.com/snapshots/venice04/ch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)