| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mike3" |
| Date: |
24 May 2005 06:34:17 PM |
| Object: |
Blowing up a planet. |
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
.
|
|
| User: "Chuckie" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 09:16:22 PM |
|
|
"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116977657.372574.7640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
What do you mean by "blow it up"?
Doesn't that define part of the answer?
blow it up-fast, blow it up slow, or vaporize it ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 10:12:20 PM |
|
|
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?<<
COMMENT:
Who knows, but this certainly demonstrates how terrifically wasteful of
evergy the Deathstar is. It takes a whole week of a star's energy
output to decently blow up a planet like the Earth. Surely if you have
that much energy available, you can figure out something better to do
with it. Like fry the crusts off a thousand planets. Dumb.
And check out the mass of that energy. As Unc Al notes, we're talking
about 2e32 J at least (it's actually more than that, since the denser
parts have sunk toward the center-- the Earth isn't uniform). That's
2e15 kg of mass, which at water-battleship densities (500 kg.m^3 or
so), is a sphere of 4e12 m^3 or 10 km in radius. Sheesh, you need a
sphere of matter the SIZE of the deathstar just to destroy in total
conversion to enough energy to blow up a planet. I wonder where the
Deathstar keeps the dang stuff?
I guess this stuff has to be DARK energy or dark matter. Hard to see,
it is. Generated, it is, by digestive processes of Nibblonians on
Vergon 6. Each pound of it weighs over 10,000 lbs. Greatly stinky, it
is.
SBH
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 10:34:49 PM |
|
|
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
Sheesh, you need a
sphere of matter the SIZE of the deathstar just to destroy in total
conversion to enough energy to blow up a planet. I wonder where the
Deathstar keeps the dang stuff?
Well, there's a handy planet around -- why not use some of its mass? Maybe
the Death Star triggers some sort of baryon-number-violating conversion of
the planet's core to antimatter. That might do the trick.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
26 May 2005 01:09:06 AM |
|
|
It'd probably be easiest to aim a projectile or series of projectiles
at it, eg a block of concrete at a percentage of c.
Another notion is to make a small black hole in a supercollider and
then bombard it to explosion, ie feed it mass at a rate faster than it
could grow, that would be a big explosion. Is that wrong? I don't
know if the black hole would behave that way, that it is initiated into
a growing self-feeding state at the center of the planet, then
overwhelmed.
Note that performing these experiments would be detrimental to life in
the ecosystem of the planet. This loose talk of exploding the planet
is not to be inferred as sincere advocacy.
I hear that if you drop ten thousand nuclear bombs on Jupiter's equator
it would tear apart. Then again, that was science fiction
(speculative).
About the physics of light sabers, wouldn't the light saber be a foam
bat to magnetic armor? That is, if it's plasma in a magnetic bottle,
besides radiating and frying the carrier, would not a suitable magnetic
field deflect it? If you have the Force, then the light saber can not
hit you.
Anyways I am wondering if the black hole can basically be exploded, in
a similar way as to an atomic nucleus.
Ross F.
--
"Boom!"
"What was that?"
"A hundred tonnes straight to the moon."
"Oh."
"Boom!"
"What were you BORN on the SUN?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 08:24:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1116977657.372574.7640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
There'd be chunks propelled by an expanding cloud of gas.
--
"Out of the way, you slime, a physicist is coming!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 08:17:03 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 09:43:18 PM |
|
|
1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of matter. <<
I'd re-do that calc. 20 kt is pretty close to 1 gram.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 11:48:05 AM |
|
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote:
1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of matter. <<
I'd re-do that calc. 20 kt is pretty close to 1 gram.
Make that 46.51 milligrams. It doesn't materially affect the
conclusion.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 11:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Wed, 25 May 2005 09:48:05 -0700
<4294AC45.80387EB9@hate.spam.net>:
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote:
1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of matter. <<
I'd re-do that calc. 20 kt is pretty close to 1 gram.
Make that 46.51 milligrams. It doesn't materially affect the
conclusion.
Especially since even Al Qaeda wouldn't be dumb enough
(or capable enough) to try this. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 11:00:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Tue, 24 May 2005 18:17:03 -0700
<4293D20F.51253F7A@hate.spam.net>:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
That's easy; just stop the sun shining for a week. The
*whole* sun, mind you, not just the bits that fall in our direction.
Then let the energy fly -- and don't miss. ;-)
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "phobos" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 09:22:39 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
From the Death Star. From Son Gokuu. From unobtainium fuel cells.
Really, it's no fun if you're going to quibble over mere engineering
details... :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 10:01:22 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
Well, just for the sake of discussion, let's suppose you can get that
much energy, and you fire it at the planet. What would remain? A field
of asteroids like in a movie, or a cloud of gas?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 11:05:09 PM |
|
|
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
Well, just for the sake of discussion, let's suppose you can get that
much energy, and you fire it at the planet. What would remain? A field
of asteroids like in a movie, or a cloud of gas?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Well, just for the sake of discussion, it depends on how much energy
you fire.
It usually takes a LOT more energy to vaporize something than it takes
to break it; I can break up a bowling ball sized rock with one good
whump of a sledge hammer, vaporizing it takes a bit more.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
24 May 2005 11:42:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
Well, just for the sake of discussion, let's suppose you can get that
much energy, and you fire it at the planet. What would remain? A field
of asteroids like in a movie, or a cloud of gas?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Well, just for the sake of discussion, it depends on how much energy
you fire.
It usually takes a LOT more energy to vaporize something than it takes
to break it; I can break up a bowling ball sized rock with one good
whump of a sledge hammer, vaporizing it takes a bit more.
You fire energy equal to the gravitational binding energy at the
planet. But since I've heard the GBE is larger than the energy required
to vaporize the planet, that means it would be vaporized.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
26 May 2005 10:07:43 AM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
Well, just for the sake of discussion, let's suppose you can get that
much energy, and you fire it at the planet. What would remain? A field
of asteroids like in a movie, or a cloud of gas?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Well, just for the sake of discussion, it depends on how much energy
you fire.
It usually takes a LOT more energy to vaporize something than it takes
to break it; I can break up a bowling ball sized rock with one good
whump of a sledge hammer, vaporizing it takes a bit more.
You fire energy equal to the gravitational binding energy at the
planet. But since I've heard the GBE is larger than the energy required
to vaporize the planet, that means it would be vaporized.
Well, I'm not sure where you've heard that. I don't necessarily think
it's wrong, but I'm curious where you heard it.
In any event, you *still* have to confine the mass somehow so that the
energy can be delivered throughout the bulk. You can NOT deliver the
vaporization energy uniformly to the bulk of the matter in one shot,
and this is where the idealistic model breaks down.
What would happen in reality is that some chunks of the matter would be
blown clear of the detonation region before they could be vaporized.
There'd be rocks.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
26 May 2005 04:01:20 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
mike3 wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy>
Where ya gonna get 2.24x10^32 joules to disassemble the Earth, git?
Use E=mc^2 to get the mass equivalent. A nuclear fusion warhead
masses 200 kg/megatonne. 1 Kt nuclear equivalent is 46.51 grams of
matter.
Well, just for the sake of discussion, let's suppose you can get that
much energy, and you fire it at the planet. What would remain? A field
of asteroids like in a movie, or a cloud of gas?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Well, just for the sake of discussion, it depends on how much energy
you fire.
It usually takes a LOT more energy to vaporize something than it takes
to break it; I can break up a bowling ball sized rock with one good
whump of a sledge hammer, vaporizing it takes a bit more.
You fire energy equal to the gravitational binding energy at the
planet. But since I've heard the GBE is larger than the energy required
to vaporize the planet, that means it would be vaporized.
Well, I'm not sure where you've heard that. I don't necessarily think
it's wrong, but I'm curious where you heard it.
It was on a "Star Wars" website that, among other things, uses actual
physics to show how much energy is needed to blow up a planet, etc.
In any event, you *still* have to confine the mass somehow so that the
energy can be delivered throughout the bulk. You can NOT deliver the
vaporization energy uniformly to the bulk of the matter in one shot,
and this is where the idealistic model breaks down.
Yep, because heat will not instananeously travel throughout the planet
and warm it evenly, and if the rate of expansion at the region of
energy injection is very high, it will carry off more of the heat
before it can get to the rest of the planet, hence less efficiency.
What would happen in reality is that some chunks of the matter would be
blown clear of the detonation region before they could be vaporized.
There'd be rocks.
But what would the majority of the mass go to? Asteroids or vapor?
Remember, it will be vapor if the temperature goes above the
vaporization point, and asteroids if it doesn't.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 12:53:30 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
That will depend on what the planet was made of in the first place.
You certainly are *NOT* going to get an asteroid belt by blowing a gas
giant to smithereens, nor can you get a blooming cloud from a ball of
rock and/or metal.
"Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put
into it." - Tom Lehrer
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
26 May 2005 03:29:22 AM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
That will depend on what the planet was made of in the first place.
You certainly are *NOT* going to get an asteroid belt by blowing a gas
giant to smithereens, nor can you get a blooming cloud from a ball of
rock and/or metal.
"Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put
into it." - Tom Lehrer
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
I'm thinking of a planet roughly the same size and composition as the
Earth.
Anyway, I'd think you will get a blooming cloud because the
gravitational binding energy of such a planet is greater than the
vaporization energy -- therefore inputting the GBE will lead to
vaporization in addition to dispersion of the mass, hence gas cloud.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Blowing up a planet. |
25 May 2005 12:22:15 PM |
|
|
mike3 wrote:
Hi.
What would happen if you could generate enough energy to blow up a
planet against it's own gravity, and fired it into the planet? (ie. if
you inputted the planet's "gravitational binding energy"?)
Would you see asteroids like in the movies, or would there be just an
expanding cloud of gas?
There would be rocks. Even in an atomic bomb, the chain reaction is
incomplete, partially because the outward pressure of the explosion
throws out chunks of the fissile core before the reaction can finish.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
