Science

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.

You are correct, however, this has nothing to do with science. It is science fiction.

Endless Mike
Gravity is science fiction?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Gravity is science fiction?

No, vaporizing a planet is science fiction. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Robtard
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.

In all probablity, both Jupiter and Saturn have a solid core, but don't let that get in your way.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, vaporizing a planet is science fiction. roll eyes (sarcastic)

It's a situation that can be modeled by science, so it's science.

Gas giant planets are already made of vapor.

Supernova explosions would vaporize any planets in the system.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Robtard
In all probablity, both Jupiter and Saturn have a solid core, but don't let that get in your way.

That's due to the pressure of the outer layers. The gas at the center of a vaporized planet would be subject to this too.

Mindship
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.
I'm just guessing, but seems to me that the energy required to vaporize the Earth would be enough to trigger some chemical reactions in the process, wherein some mass of the Earth would be converted into energy which would not be recovered (albiet, a tiny fraction).

Also, the heat of vaporization could conceivably imbue some molecules with enough kinetic energy, such that, some molecules would be flung out beyond gravity's reach (similar to the explanation as to why black hole activity at galactic centers is sometimes cold, sometimes hot).

But, may I ask, what is the purpose of this thread?

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Mindship
I'm just guessing, but seems to me that the energy required to vaporize the Earth would be enough to trigger some chemical reactions in the process, wherein some mass of the Earth would be converted into energy which would not be recovered (albiet, a tiny fraction).

Also, the heat of vaporization could conceivably imbue some molecules with enough kinetic energy, such that, some molecules would be flung out beyond gravity's reach (similar to the explanation as to why black hole activity at galactic centers is sometimes cold, sometimes hot).

But, may I ask, what is the purpose of this thread?

Scattering a tiny bit of the mass is not the same as scattering all of it (which is what I'm talking about).

Someone called me stupid when I told this to them, just because they didn't believe it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Endless Mike
It's a situation that can be modeled by science, so it's science.

Gas giant planets are already made of vapor.

Supernova explosions would vaporize any planets in the system.

However, a supernova would not only vaporize a planet, it would destroy it.

If you could magically tune a planet, like Earth, into vapor, the planet would expand to the point where the gravity of the planet would not be able to hold the gas together. The solar wind would blow the planet away.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, a supernova would not only vaporize a planet, it would destroy it.

If you could magically tune a planet, like Earth, into vapor, the planet would expand to the point where the gravity of the planet would not be able to hold the gas together. The solar wind would blow the planet away.

The vapor of the earth would have the same mass as the earth did originally. Gravity would hold it together.

Victor Von Doom
If one should venture into an umbrella emporium with the requisite number of coins, procuring an umbrella is theoretically possible.

The coins, however, will not stop precipitation enwettening one's clothing, skin and hair.

Schecter
i love how everyone is touting theory as fact.

i think there's enough hot air in this thread to vaporise the solar system entirely.

:edit: yes i know that its impossible for hot air to vaporise it, so stfu poindexter

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Endless Mike
The vapor of the earth would have the same mass as the earth did originally. Gravity would hold it together.

No, look at what happens to a star the forms a planetary nebula.

http://seds.org/messier/planetar.html

The mass of the star does not change, but the internal pressure expands the star to the point where the outside gasses are no longer bound by gravity.

The same thing would happen to a planet if it was vaporized.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Schecter
i love how everyone is touting theory as fact.

i think there's enough hot air in this thread to vaporise the solar system entirely.

Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the common use of the word "theory" (which just means hypothesis)?

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, look at what happens to a star the forms a planetary nebula.

http://seds.org/messier/planetar.html

The mass of the star does not change, but the internal pressure expands the star to the point where the outside gasses are no longer bound by gravity.

The same thing would happen to a planet if it was vaporized.

That's not vaporization, that's a nuclear reaction. Planets aren't massive enough to create nuclear fusion at their cores.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Endless Mike
That's not vaporization, that's a nuclear reaction. Planets aren't massive enough to create nuclear fusion at their cores.

What would happen if you took a rock and vaporized it?

debbiejo
Originally posted by Mindship
But, may I ask, what is the purpose of this thread? He wants to blow up a planet. sad

Da Pittman
Well one of the problems that you would have if you vaporized the Moon is that many of the particles on the outer edge of the cloud would be pulled to the stronger body of mass which would be the Earth and thus adding to the mass of the Earth. While much of the cloud would merge back together some mass would be lost if not already converted to energy.

inimalist
ok, so, "vaporizing" a planet is not a scientific theory. The process by which the planet is vaporized would be a theory, as would the further actions of the atoms.

There are also many problems with the "theories". 1) Initially there is no cause of the vaporization, making it impossible to say what would happen after 2) in a super nova, and vapor released from the earth would be propelled out of the solar system or could be consumed by the star. 3) In instance 1, solar winds and competing gravity from other bodies would certainly push the "vapor" around, as would any energy that was put into it to vaporize the planet. 4) Gas giants did not form from the vaporization of solid matter. 5) Diffusion would probably play a role. 6) vaporization is not defined 7) we have never witnessed anything close to vaporization anyways...

wink Its nice when people use the word science, but lets make sure we aren't just doing so to make what we are saying sound impressive?

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
He wants to blow up a planet. sad Kewl. I have one in mind. Just give me a few minutes to pack my bags and rent a shuttle.

Anyway, I found this...

"Calculations:
Notations to be used:
r = distance from core of planet
R = Radius of planet
p = density of planet
G = Newton's gravitational constant = 6.67 x 10^-11
M = mass of core
m = mass of planet = p times V
U = gravitational potential energy
E = energy (total)
pi = 3.14159...etc
V = volume, for a sphere = (4/3)pi R^3
I will calculate the gravitational potential energy between a "shell" of the planet and the core, then integrate from r=0 to r=R. A shell can be imagined by visualizing the planet as composed of many layers of infinetely thin shells with thickness dr. There would be shells at every distance r from 0 to R.

A shell would have mass dm = p times dV. dV is the volume of the shell, which would be the surface area of the shell times the thickness. So dV =

(4*pi*r^2)*dr. Thus, dm = p * (4*pi*r^2)*dr

First, the gravitational potential energy is:

U(r) = -GMm / r

So, the potential energy of a shell of mass dm at distance r would be

dU(r) = -GM dm / r

The mass M is the mass of the core: ie. the mass of everything from radius 0 to radius r where the shell is. From the shell theorem, we can regard this mass as acting as a point mass at the centre of the planet. Mass is p times V so M = p*(4/3)*pi*r^3.

So then plugging in the above values for M and dm, we get:

dU(r) = -(16/3)G*(p^2)*(pi^2)*(r^4)*dr

Everything on the right is a constant except for the (r^4)dr part, whose integral is (1/5)*r^5. Now integrating the above expression from r=0 to r=R, we will get:

E = U (total) = -(16/3)*G*(p^2)*(pi^2)*(R^5)

So then, to free all these particles and explode the planet, we need to make the total energy be at least 0. So if we gave the planet the amount of energy E as above then it would explode. Any extra energy more than E would give the particles kinetic energy and determines how fast the pieces fly about.

For the Earth, R = 6.38x10^6 metres.
And density, under our assumptions = mass / volume = 5497 kg/m^3

Putting these numbers in, we get the energy to "explode" the Earth to be 2 x 10^32 J. So then the magnitude of energy to explode the Earth is somewhere in the range of 10^32 J."

Happy Dance

Shakyamunison
10^32 J OMG

chithappens
Hahaha pwnage

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship

Putting these numbers in, we get the energy to "explode" the Earth to be 2 x 10^32 J. So then the magnitude of energy to explode the Earth is somewhere in the range of 10^32 J."

Happy Dance

provided the earth were inside of a vaccum

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by inimalist
we have never witnessed anything close to vaporization anyways...


Well, I just made some tea.

debbiejo
Of course. I'm having Vanilla Latte.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.


It's so strange that you would start this topic, as I just changed my you_tube video page to "gravitational topic/physics" yesterday.

I hope you aren't cyber staking a person (I've had that happen and it's a very strange feeling, it doesn't make you think of the person/group or think well of them, I think I had proven it happened in another msg board, as she kept the same user name, but mocked my thread in another forum (w/o mentioning my user name, but less then 5 hours after she posted on here, she started a mock thread in another msg board about the same topic but with a negative slant, but she kept the same user name in both msg boards))..., it's easy to do b/c it's been done to me many times before, for example, in this situation, in some posts or threads, I leave comments on the you_tube links, so once you see the link, and look at the comment sections, it's easy to see my user name (CC) and look at the main page.

But, I don't know, if you are doing that to someone (or myself) and they figure it out, it's usually not a good thing. It's like you are following a person and trying to copy or mimick them b/c you haven't developed your own interests or you want to test that person's interest and see how others respond to it. It's as if you aren't your own person yet, and SEEMS like you're taking a possessive route with someone you don't know, following a person is taking a possessive route, it demonstrates the idea that the other's person's liberty isn't important and you are latching onto that person (either by gender, race, ethnicity, or interests...)w/o their permission, so it's stalkerish, either online or in person.

I could be wrong, and if I am, my apologies.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CzarinaCzarina

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
It's so strange that you would start this topic, as I just changed my you_tube video page to "gravitational topic/physics"

I hope you arent' cyber staking a person..., it's easy to do, in some posts or threads, I leave comments on the you_tube links, so once you see the link, and look at the comment sections, it's easy to see my name and look at the main page.

But, I don't know, if you are doing that to someone (or myself) and they figure it out, it's usually not a good thing. It's like you are following a person and trying to copy or mimick them b/c you haven't developed your own interests or you want to test that person's interest and see how others respond to it. I could be wrong, and if I am, my apologies.

hysterical

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
It's so strange that you would start this topic, as I just changed my you_tube video page to "gravitational topic/physics"

I hope you arent' cyber staking a person..., it's easy to do, in some posts or threads, I leave comments on the you_tube links, so once you see the link, and look at the comment sections, it's easy to see my name and look at the main page.

But, I don't know, if you are doing that to someone (or myself) and they figure it out, it's usually not a good thing. It's like you are following a person and trying to copy or mimick them b/c you haven't developed your own interests or you want to test that person's interest and see how others respond to it. I could be wrong, and if I am, my apologies.

Possibly the gravest accusation of recent years, including War Crime.

Schecter
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and the common use of the word "theory" (which just means hypothesis)?


do you get off on blowing hot air and insulting the intelligence of others?

oh you'll fit right in here.

chithappens
Who reads Czarina anymore? I skip it every time now.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
Of course. I'm having Vanilla Latte.


i love those...

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Possibly the gravest accusation of recent years, including War Crime.

then it was just a coincidence...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CzarinaCzarina

(and no, i'm not advertising, just demonstrating a point, i changed the page yesterday, so it's just a coincidence or something bazaar).

debbiejo
They're addicting. I hope no one blows up the planet. I kind of like it here.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
They're addicting. I hope no one blows up the planet. I kind of like it here.


why would someone blow up the planent? a country maybe, but the planet????

debbiejo
Well, there is a conspiracy theory on how to do it.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
provided the earth were inside of a vaccum

We could try putting it in space or something O_o

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
why would someone blow up the planent? a country maybe, but the planet????

You're joking right?

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're joking right?


not really, i'll look it up...i never read anything about someone or some group wanting to blow up the entire planet (wwIII, but that wouldn't destroy the entire planent)...

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
not really, i'll look it up...i never read anything about someone or some group wanting to blow up the entire planet (wwIII, but that wouldn't destroy the entire planent)...

The primary motivation who be annihilation of all life on the planet. Which is a noble goal if I do say so myself (and I don't)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
not really, i'll look it up...i never read anything about someone or some group wanting to blow up the entire planet (wwIII, but that wouldn't destroy the entire planent)...

Star Wars

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Vaporizing a gravitationally bound body (moon or planet for example) takes far less energy than actually destroying it.

If the Earth were to be vaporized, the vapor would still have the same mass as the original matter of the earth, and gravity would pull it back together. The gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas (vapor) and they hold together just fine. To destroy a gravitationally bound body you have to scatter its mass in all directions to the point where gravity cannot pull it back together again. This takes far more energy.

If you claim otherwise you are scientifically ignorant.

It depends on how you think through.You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't argee with you.jm smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It depends on how you think through.You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't argee with you.jm smile True, you can call them ignorant if they fit the definition of the word ignorant.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Star Wars

Yeah, but isn't that a war b/t starships in outer space? they don't care about earthlings or terristeral planets, they're busy in the star system, dodging their enemies or going after one.

Have you ever seen the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I hated that movie EXCEPT for the part of the dolphins:
you have to see the entire clip to enjoy it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OoNP8AYHh0

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Yeah, but isn't that a war b/t starships in outer space? they don't care about earthlings or terristeral planets, they're busy in the star system, dodging their enemies or going after one.

They intentionally blew up a planet with a giant laser. It's one of the best known scenes in SciFi history.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Yeah, but isn't that a war b/t starships in outer space? they don't care about earthlings or terristeral planets, they're busy in the star system, dodging their enemies or going after one.

Have you ever seen the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I hated that movie EXCEPT for the part of the dolphins:
you have to see the entire clip to enjoy it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OoNP8AYHh0 Have you ever read it?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Have you ever read it?

Reading closes the mind to true perception.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Bardock42
Have you ever read it?


I'm not into sci-fi novels, hardly into romance novels...i'll read historical and some philosohical ones. So, no, I haven't.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I'm not into sci-fi novels, hardly into romance novels...i'll read historical and some philosohical ones. So, no, I haven't. Aha, well, should do.

Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reading closes the mind to true perception.



REally? I thought reading was a coded language to practice exchange of communication and record information in order to avoid the unseen ability to monitor our exchange of ideas, it's a way of avoiding frequency of vibration, which other "beasts" or entities may be able to understand. Also, it's used as an exercise to dismantle and then, to recreate. So, b4 an idea (main idea) is written, it's pictured, then, it's written down. That means we start off as a whole, break things apart in different perspectives, and come around back to the whole (but we may end up with different images, as our imagination is captured in various ways depending on our previous knowledge and ability to comprehend). As we read, our brain practices forming bits of knowledge back into a whole picture.

So, reading is both a way of coding information to avoid communicating on the frequency level, and it's also a way of exercising our brains by forcing us to put the puzzled words into the original picture that was never sent to us telepathically.

That's the purpose of written language. But, I could be wrong.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Aha, well, should do.

will do.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would happen if you took a rock and vaporized it?

Rocks aren't massive enough to be gravitationally bound. Their gravity isn't strong enough to hold them together.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so, "vaporizing" a planet is not a scientific theory. The process by which the planet is vaporized would be a theory, as would the further actions of the atoms.

There are also many problems with the "theories". 1) Initially there is no cause of the vaporization, making it impossible to say what would happen after 2)

Complete red herring. The method does not matter, only the result. If a bowling ball is dropped from 10 feet up, you don't need to know how it got there to tell that it will fall down.



What are you talking about? Vaporization is a simply phase change of matter. You can do it in your kitchen.



This is all confirmed by scientific understanding.

Endless Mike
Originally posted by inimalist
provided the earth were inside of a vaccum

Space is a vacuum

Endless Mike
Originally posted by Schecter
do you get off on blowing hot air and insulting the intelligence of others?

oh you'll fit right in here.

Answer the question.

inimalist
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Complete red herring. The method does not matter, only the result. If a bowling ball is dropped from 10 feet up, you don't need to know how it got there to tell that it will fall down.

It does though

your question was what would happen if a planet were vaporized

there would be different results depending on how you vaporized it roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Endless Mike
What are you talking about? Vaporization is a simply phase change of matter. You can do it in your kitchen.

oh right

so, change that to "we haven't witnessed a planet vaporizing"

*awaits your smart ass response that further ignores the more fundamental point of my reply*

Originally posted by Endless Mike
This is all confirmed by scientific understanding.

see, science is a word with a really specific meaning. You might be assisted if you looked it up.

And I never said that your specific points were not supported by science, but that your "theory" was not scientific.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Space is a vacuum

since when?

In space, if you just "applied" however much power Mindship came up with, you aren't going to get the result of the planet exploding. Unless you had a specific contraption that applied equal force to all atoms and were able to prevent that energy from escaping into space, there are going to be too many confounding factors that would change the way things went.

My assumption is that if one was to release that much power on the surface of the planet, there would be a big chunk of super charged atoms that escaped into space, but the energy wouldn't distribute itself accross the whole planet...

LOL, honestly, the reply was more a tounge in cheek nod to the fact that Mindship has access to knowledge that I do not, hopefully the respecfulness of it was apparent wink

Endless Mike
Originally posted by inimalist
It does though

your question was what would happen if a planet were vaporized

there would be different results depending on how you vaporized it

It would depend on how much energy was input. It can all be modeled by the laws of physics.



Do you have any idea how the scientific method works? Scientists make observations, use them to create theories, test the theories against more observations and experiments, and refine them. The whole point is to be able to predict how the universe will behave without actually having to witness every single thing.



Gravity is not scientific? Phase changes of matter are not scientific? This has all been understood since at least Newton's time.



Certainly it's possible to eject a fraction of planetary mass from its own gravity (we've done it many times with our space probes), but ejecting the entire planet's mass so that gravity will not reform it is a completely different matter. The gravitational binding energy models this requirement.

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
REally? I thought reading was a coded language to practice exchange of communication and record information in order to avoid the unseen ability to monitor our exchange of ideas, it's a way of avoiding frequency of vibration, which other "beasts" or entities may be able to understand. Also, it's used as an exercise to dismantle and then, to recreate. So, b4 an idea (main idea) is written, it's pictured, then, it's written down. That means we start off as a whole, break things apart in different perspectives, and come around back to the whole (but we may end up with different images, as our imagination is captured in various ways depending on our previous knowledge and ability to comprehend). As we read, our brain practices forming bits of knowledge back into a whole picture.

So, reading is both a way of coding information to avoid communicating on the frequency level, and it's also a way of exercising our brains by forcing us to put the puzzled words into the original picture that was never sent to us telepathically.

That's the purpose of written language. But, I could be wrong.

will do.

For once, Czarina makes a very good point.

I actually agree with her.

inimalist
Originally posted by Endless Mike
It would depend on how much energy was input. It can all be modeled by the laws of physics.

Do you have any idea how the scientific method works? Scientists make observations, use them to create theories, test the theories against more observations and experiments, and refine them. The whole point is to be able to predict how the universe will behave without actually having to witness every single thing.

Gravity is not scientific? Phase changes of matter are not scientific? This has all been understood since at least Newton's time.

Certainly it's possible to eject a fraction of planetary mass from its own gravity (we've done it many times with our space probes), but ejecting the entire planet's mass so that gravity will not reform it is a completely different matter. The gravitational binding energy models this requirement.

my point was that you have not proposed anything close to a scientific theory

you have yet to. The closest you have come is saying that "The energy required to vaporize a body would be less than the energy required to explode it". That COULD be a theory if you made some specifications and operational definitions.

and if you are really interested, yes, I am well versed in the scientific method, scientific philosophy, and the realities of scientific research

Mindship
"So then the magnitude of energy to explode the Earth is somewhere in the range of 10^32 J."

10^32 joules translates to an explosion in the range of 100 billion billion gigatons.

High estimates of the total energy released by the Shoemaker-Levy comet fragments colliding with Jupiter are about 100,000 gigatons.

The energy to "explode" the Earth is therefore like a million billion Shoemaker-Levy comets (the whole of each comet, not fragments) striking our planet.

Someone may wanna check my math, because right now, if they struck all over the surface in wave after wave, that seems like more than enough ka-boom to turn us into plasma (maybe most of our iron core would survive).

Admiral Akbar
nice calculations. Seems fine to me.

jaden101
you couldn't vaporise the earth and maintain in in a localised gas ball similar to the gas giants because of its chemical make up...Its iron core will simply, under its own mass and thus its own gravitational force, be pulled into a solid mass as would the rest of the earths elemental and molecular make up.

unless you somehow propose to change the chemical balance of the earths contents so that under its current mass it would remain at a point where its pressure and gravity allow its chemical content to remain in a gaseous phase in space. then it would simply reform to a solid mass again

and the energy required to break the chemical bonds of the earths current molecular make up and then reform it into an entirely different chemical make up would be quite astronomical

so effectively what i'm saying is that whereas jupiter and saturn and predominantly hydrogen and uranus contain high proportions of methane and ammonia....they exist is gas phase because the balance between the pressure cause by it mass/gravity in balance with the temperature these pressures create...mean it exists as a gas..although uranus and neptune's atmophere's effectively solidify during their equivalent of winter and thus change their diameters

Mindship
The energy to "explode" the Earth is therefore like a million billion Shoemaker-Levy comets (the whole of each comet, not fragments) striking our planet...if they struck all over the surface in wave after wave, that seems like more than enough ka-boom to turn us into plasma... To continue our Fun With Numbers...

The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. The diameter of the original, intact Shoemaker-Levy comet is estimated to be about 5 miles (a conservative estimate). This means, for comets to be striking--at once--every square mile of the Earth's surface, the first wave would contain about 40 million comets. If we hold constant at 40 million per wave, we're talking about 25 million waves.

That's gotta hurt.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
To continue our Fun With Numbers...

The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. The diameter of the original, intact Shoemaker-Levy comet is estimated to be about 5 miles (a conservative estimate). This means, for comets to be striking--at once--every square mile of the Earth's surface, the first wave would contain about 40 million comets. If we hold constant at 40 million per wave, we're talking about 25 million waves.

That's gotta hurt.

eek!
wow, go earth

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
To continue our Fun With Numbers...

The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles. The diameter of the original, intact Shoemaker-Levy comet is estimated to be about 5 miles (a conservative estimate). This means, for comets to be striking--at once--every square mile of the Earth's surface, the first wave would contain about 40 million comets. If we hold constant at 40 million per wave, we're talking about 25 million waves.

That's gotta hurt.

I feel scared now . . .

Bicnarok

Mindship
If we hold constant at 40 million per wave, we're talking about 25 million waves. At a steady rate of 1 comet-wave every 2 seconds, this assault would take a year and 8 months to complete. smokin'

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
At a steady rate of 1 comet-wave every 2 seconds, this assault would take a year and 8 months to complete. smokin'

LOL

mathmagicianary

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Space is a vacuum no

Bicnarok
the empty bit is, but there are still little bits flying around the space between them is just rather large.

inimalist
Originally posted by Bicnarok
the empty bit is, but there are still little bits flying around the space between them is just rather large.

thats only the matter though

gravity, energy, dark matter/energy, radiation, all of those things make space not a vaccum. Gravity and radiation are pretty much everywhere in the universe, and dark energy is probably as well.

chickenlover98
this is my retarded idea. a gravity enhancer. so you could train in heightened gravity. like the way they do it in dbz. so it would tone the muscles instead of just growing them. this way you could be super strong and not have your veins pop because ur so big.

chickenlover98
im sure there are a hundred different problems with the idea, starting with how to generate it. im sure mike can instantly figure out why im a complete idiot or so can one of the other genius's. hit me

Mindship
Why not just wear a weighted suit to mimic the effect of stronger gravity? An arm throwing a punch won't know the difference.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
Why not just wear a weighted suit to mimic the effect of stronger gravity? An arm throwing a punch won't know the difference.

The reasoning against that is that it can be very dangerous to a person trying to do it. The greater mass makes training while wearing heavy weights clumsy and may cause amounts of strain that can damage muscles.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
Why not just wear a weighted suit to mimic the effect of stronger gravity? An arm throwing a punch won't know the difference.

Because objects will not fall as fast...even IF they weight more...in the same gravity environment.

Also, our bodies are not designed for higher gravity...they are designed for the gravity that we live in.

Also, heavier arms equals greater inertia upon impact....it would be hilarious to punch someone across the room....assuming that you don't punch a hole through them.

jaden101
Originally posted by Mindship
Why not just wear a weighted suit to mimic the effect of stronger gravity? An arm throwing a punch won't know the difference.

cause that would limit the effect to skeletal muscles...a higher gravitational pull would effect the entire body...just as a lesser gravity effects astronauts who are on space stations for long periods by weakening them...an increase would hav the opposite effect

Magee
So you are saying we would become stronger in higher gravity? eek!

Alliance
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Supernova explosions would vaporize any planets in the system.

You're scientifically ignorant.

Originally posted by Magee
So you are saying we would become stronger in higher gravity? eek! not necessarily, your body is just used to combatting a stranger force. It doesn't mean you will absolutely be stronger

dadudemon
Originally posted by Magee
So you are saying we would become stronger in higher gravity? eek!

Yes but at the expense of your Fibrocartilage. I would say that even double Earth's gravity would cause pain in the joints in just a few days. What good is it to be in that state when you can't stay in it for very long? However, It remains to be seen and I could be wrong. Our bodies may work just fine in an environment like that and it would just take half the time to wear away our cartilage in double gravity. (Like 25 years instead of 50 years...etc.)

I would be willing to try it for fun.

Having diarrhea in double gravity would be pretty shitty, though.

MR.Grum
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct, however, this has nothing to do with science. It is science fiction. lmao its physics.

jaden101
Originally posted by Magee
So you are saying we would become stronger in higher gravity? eek!

relatively...no...cause everything else would be susceptible to the same force...had u lived on a slightly higher gravitational force planet...then came to earth...you would be stronger...same as u can hit a golf ball for miles on the moons surface

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.