Originally posted by NemeBro
It isn't.http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=63459
http://outskirtsbattledome.wikispaces.com/Gravitational+Binding+Energy
According to the science in these two links, moving Earth out of its normal orbit to Mars' requires a full order of magnitude more energy than destroying it.
Now while you can claim that science doesn't apply to comics, how else would you quantify it? Unless you have a scan of both Marvel and DC agreeing that busting a planet>moving it, you have no basis for your stance. I have basis for mine.
It's all speculation it seems but the forces it would take to destroy the earth without it eventually reforming is awesome indeed.
Source: This method suggested by Sean Timpa.5.OverspunYou will need: some means of accelerating the Earth's rotation.Accelerating the Earth's rotation is a rather different matter from movingit. External interactions with asteroids might move the Earth but won't have asignificant effect on how fast it spins. And certainly it won't spin the Earthfast enough. You need to build rockets or railguns at the Equator, all facingWest. Or perhaps something more exotic...Method: The theory is, if you spin the Earth fast enough, it'll fly apart asthe bits at the Equator start moving fast enough to overcome gravity. In theory,one revolution every 84 minutes should do it - even slower would be fine, in fact,as the Earth would become flatter and thus more prone to breaking apart as youspun it faster.Feasibility rating: 4/10. This could be done - there is a definite upperlimit on how fast something like the Earth can spin before it breaks apart.However, spinning a planet is even more difficult than moving it. It's not assimple as attaching rockets pointing in each direction to each side...Source: This method suggested by Matthew Wakeling.6.Blown upYou will need: 25,000,000,000,000 tonnes of antimatter.Method: This method involves detonating a bomb so big that it blasts theEarth to pieces.This, to say the least, requires a big bomb. All the explosives mankind hasever created, nuclear or non-, gathered together and detonated simultaneously,would make a significant crater and wreck the planet's ecosystem, but barelyscratch the surface of the planet. There is evidence that in the past, asteroidshave hit the Earth with the explosive yield of five billion Hiroshima bombs - andsuch evidence is difficult to find. It is, in short, insanely difficult tosignificantly alter the Earth's structure with explosives. This is not to mentionthe gravity problem. Just because you blasted the Earth apart doesn't mean youblasted it apart for good. If you don't blast it hard enough, the pieces will fallback together again under mutual gravitational attraction, and Earth, like theliquid metal Terminator, will reform from its shattered shards. You have to blowthe Earth up hard enough to overcome that attraction.How hard is that?If you do the lengthy calculations you find that to liberate that muchenergy is equivalent to the complete annihilation of around 1,246,400,000,000tonnes of antimatter. That's assuming zero energy loss to heat, neutrinos andradiation, which is unlikely to be the case in reality: You'll probably need to upthe dose by at least a factor of twenty. Once you've generated your antimatter,probably in space, just launch it en masse towards Earth. The resulting release ofenergy (obeying Einstein's famous mass-energy equation, E=mc2) should besufficient to split the Earth into a thousand pieces.
But I digress and fall back with my real world example. Pick up a 25 pound dumbbell and try to destroy it under your own physical power. Tell me which is harder in the weight room. I win.
