Re: Science
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 🙂
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...
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.
Originally posted by Czarina_CzarinaHave you ever read it?
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...
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.
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.
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...
What are you talking about? Vaporization is a simply phase change of matter. You can do it in your kitchen.
😉 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?
This is all confirmed by scientific understanding.
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 🙄
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 😉
Originally posted by inimalist
It does thoughyour 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.
oh rightso, 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*
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.
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.
Gravity is not scientific? Phase changes of matter are not scientific? This has all been understood since at least Newton's time.
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 😉
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.
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.
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
"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).