A little bit of confusion here.
We are not talking about my body being crushed by being pinned between a rocket accelerating at 1g and the mass of an asteroid. We are talking about the mass of the earth being accelerated at 1g by a force which is moving at 9.8m/s/s. If we hypothesise for a moment that the UA force was a solid object spreading an even force across the entire underside of the earth, that force would always remain the same as the earth moved ahead of it and wouldn't be generating heat anymore than me experiencing 5g in aerobatics would generate heat in what I am in contact with. On the other hand a direct impact against a non moving solid object by another solid object moving at 9.8m/s will quite likely generate some heat from the energy of the impact.
It would be good to restate the above with crystal clear distinction between acceleration and velocity.
But we are not talking about impact we are talking about continuous acceleration which is not enough pressure to turn rock into magma.
Again, no amount of pressure turns rock into magma unless there is deformation/destruction/friction/chemical change. The heat of an impact can melt things because of those things.
In the RE model, all of the energy generated by gravity is directed inwards towards the core from every direction with no subsequent acceleration away from the energy by the trapped inner rocks, so the energy will be converted into heat enough to turn the rock to magma. I should add that is purely my thoughts based on no scientific background just thinking about it as Tom asked.
Roger
This is not right. There is magma inside the round earth for four reasons:
Most of Earth's heat is stored in the mantle, Marone says, and there are four sources that keep it hot. First, there's the heat left over from when gravity first condensed a planet from the cloud of hot gases and particles in pre-Earth space. As the molten ball cooled, some 4 billion years ago, the outside hardened and formed a crust. The mantle is still cooling down.
"We don't think this original heat is a major part of the Earth's heat, though," Marone says. It only contributes 5 to 10 percent of the total, "about the same amount as gravitational heat."
To explain gravitational heat, Marone again evokes the image of the hot, freshly formed Earth, which was not of a consistent density. In a gravitational sorting process called differentiation, the denser, heavier parts were drawn to the center, and the less dense areas were displaced outwards. The friction created by this process generated considerable heat, which, like the original heat, still has not fully dissipated.
Then there's latent heat, Marone says. This type arises from the core's expanding as the Earth cools from the inside out. Just as freezing water turns to ice, that liquid metal is turning solid—and adding volume in the process. "The inner core is becoming larger by about a centimeter every thousand years," Marone says. The heat released by this expansion is seeping into the mantle.
For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."
Radioactivity is present not only in the mantle, but in the rocks of Earth's crust. For example, Marone explains, a 1-kilogram block of granite on the surface emanates a tiny but measurable amount of heat (about as much as a .000000001 watt light bulb) through radioactive decay.
That may not seem like much. But considering the vastness of the mantle, it adds up, Marone says.
Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2006-03-probing-earth-core.html