EARTH FACES CERTAIN DESTRUCTION

[JF060392]

after reading the book the hammer of god by arthur c clarke i did alot of reasearch and came up with a few problems, there are asteroids called dark asteroiods and there are also black comets. supose we located one with a radio telescope. the asteroid oir comet is infact bound for earth. the thing is it will hit in 6 days! how would we defend our planet amoung these cosmic bullets. response time becomes critical and the people on earth must act quickly if they are to save earth. would we be able to think of somthing with in these 6 days and stop the comet/asteroid. earth depends on it yet how would nasa use htere technology?

 

[engineereeyore]

So, I guess we couldn't just send a team up there to "drill"?

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
So, I guess we couldn't just send a team up there to "drill"?

i'm sure bruce willis could find a way.

btw, i never did see the end of the movie... did they save the earth?

 

[cheesehead]

The majority of asteroids are so small that they vaporize in the atmosphere. Comets are similar, but are even more likely to vaporize due to the fact that they're mostly water.
Also, the Earth's been around for something like a billion years. We've only had one really big asteroid crash in the last few hundred million. Chances are, it'll be a while before the next one.

 

[imported_Spoot]

Cheesehead....the Earth has been around for more than a billion years....try closer to more than 4 billion. Also, there have been about 4 to 5 large asteroid impacts which have caused large scale extinction.

 

[pm]

Even if a very large asteroid hits the Earth, it certainly doesn't face certain destruction. All of living things, on the other hand, might have more problems. But I think the planet would make it through ok even if the Moon crashed into us.

This being the HT group, I vote no topics with all capitalized letters.

 

[Witling]

Don't worry about it, radio telescopes can detect only objects that emit on radio frequencies. Comets and asteroids don't. You'll never know it's coming!

 

[patentman]

We will take the best possible course of action. We'll send Bruce Willis up 5to die while I eat animal crackers off of Liv Tyler. At least I will die happy.

 

[DrPizza]

The earth is most certainly not facing complete destruction. (now, where's that link?) Last year, someone found a link to the top 10 most likely ways to destroy the earth. None of which, humans are capable of, and none of which involved a comet or asteroid.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The earth is most certainly not facing complete destruction. (now, where's that link?) Last year, someone found a link to the top 10 most likely ways to destroy the earth. None of which, humans are capable of, and none of which involved a comet or asteroid.

why does he need a link? it was a "what if", not "omgz this scientist said the earth is pwnzed in a week."

also, that list said the top 10 ways, not ALL of the ways. im sure humans could find a way to destroy earth by setting off a massive number of nukes, like millions or more, at the same time all around the globe. or we could build a huge pipe to outerspace and let it suck all of the oceans off of the planet, THEN we blow it up with all the nukes. see...i could go on for hours.

 

[Looney]

Don't know about the earth, since it'll always be here unless it was the moon that crashed into us. But we'll almost certainly face certain destruction.

 

[Soccerman06]

Originally posted by: Looney
Don't know about the earth, since it'll always be here unless it was the moon that crashed into us. But we'll almost certainly face certain destruction.

IIRC the moon is moving something like 3cm away from Earth a year, so something catastrophic would have to happen to the moon (black hole, alien influance, or other) for the moon to even come towards Earth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The earth is most certainly not facing complete destruction. (now, where's that link?) Last year, someone found a link to the top 10 most likely ways to destroy the earth. None of which, humans are capable of, and none of which involved a comet or asteroid.

Ask and you shall receive. Linky

 

[DVK916]

While an armagedeon asteroid or comet, another tunguska type event happening to a major populated area is very likely in the next few hundred years.

 

[BrownTown]

not really, big asteroid don't hit all that often, and even when they do the likelyhood of hitting a heavily populaed area is very small. I mean, 70% of the world is ocean, and most of the rest is very sparcely populated areas of forests, deserts, or farming areas. Only a very small fraction of the earth is very populated.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The earth is most certainly not facing complete destruction. (now, where's that link?) Last year, someone found a link to the top 10 most likely ways to destroy the earth. None of which, humans are capable of, and none of which involved a comet or asteroid.

why does he need a link? it was a "what if", not "omgz this scientist said the earth is pwnzed in a week."

also, that list said the top 10 ways, not ALL of the ways. im sure humans could find a way to destroy earth by setting off a massive number of nukes, like millions or more, at the same time all around the globe. or we could build a huge pipe to outerspace and let it suck all of the oceans off of the planet, THEN we blow it up with all the nukes. see...i could go on for hours.

All the nukes in the world wouldn't do squat as far as destroying the Earth.

Gravitational Binding Energy of the Earth ~2.24x10^32 Joules
here

It is estimated that, including deployed warheads, spares, those in active and inactive storarge and ?pits? (plutonium cores), the total world stockpile consisted of over 36 800 warheads as of 1 January 2002.

The best I could find:
World's stockpile of nuclear weapons is around 8 gigatons (of TNT)
1 Megaton tnt = 4.18x10^15 Joules
So, 8*4.18*10^15*1000 = 3.34 x10^19 Joules...


It seems that we need 6.7 x 10^12 times as many nuclear weapons as we currently have.
(or roughly, 13 thousand times as many nukes as we currently have for every square kilometer on the surface of the Earth)
No, we're not blowing up this planet anytime soon, even if we wanted to.


p.s. Even the 59 megaton Tsar Bomba was but a burp on the surface of the earth.
And, if all 36,800 of those warheads were as powerful as Tsar Bomba (biggest nuke ever detonated - Russia), we'd still need about 25,000 times as many nukes as we currently have.

 

[Mishkav]

duuuuuuuuude!! earf gonna be distroved?! dude when1 listen dawg i like dis form and shyyyyttt but this wats goota vbe to gota go, and my momma alway be said to me dat if its like that sometimes u gotta do what u wanna go.. and u gots to est goal in ur life like be gettin the like some nice pussy and shyyt like a fat gurl and shyyt. .but das it , after that u just gotta get on HUD and get payed n ****** daw.. iight pyce meke suah to pay duh rent

 

[Smilin]

We don't need to worry about this just yet. Chuck Norris is getting old but he's still around. Once he's gone we'll have no defense.

 

[Soccerman06]

Originally posted by: Mishkav
duuuuuuuuude!! earf gonna be distroved?! dude when1 listen dawg i like dis form and shyyyyttt but this wats goota vbe to gota go, and my momma alway be said to me dat if its like that sometimes u gotta do what u wanna go.. and u gots to est goal in ur life like be gettin the like some nice pussy and shyyt like a fat gurl and shyyt. .but das it , after that u just gotta get on HUD and get payed n ****** daw.. iight pyce meke suah to pay duh rent

If you dont have anything worthwhile to say, dont say it.

And DrPizza, Your math is a little wrong, how would we need more Tsar Bomba's than all of the other combined nukes? Apparently we need 920,000,000 Tsar Bombas, but only 478,400,000. Roughly half the nukes of Tsar Bomba even though its the most powerful ever made.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The earth is most certainly not facing complete destruction. (now, where's that link?) Last year, someone found a link to the top 10 most likely ways to destroy the earth. None of which, humans are capable of, and none of which involved a comet or asteroid.

why does he need a link? it was a "what if", not "omgz this scientist said the earth is pwnzed in a week."

also, that list said the top 10 ways, not ALL of the ways. im sure humans could find a way to destroy earth by setting off a massive number of nukes, like millions or more, at the same time all around the globe. or we could build a huge pipe to outerspace and let it suck all of the oceans off of the planet, THEN we blow it up with all the nukes. see...i could go on for hours.

All the nukes in the world wouldn't do squat as far as destroying the Earth.

Gravitational Binding Energy of the Earth ~2.24x10^32 Joules
here

It is estimated that, including deployed warheads, spares, those in active and inactive storarge and ?pits? (plutonium cores), the total world stockpile consisted of over 36 800 warheads as of 1 January 2002.

The best I could find:
World's stockpile of nuclear weapons is around 8 gigatons (of TNT)
1 Megaton tnt = 4.18x10^15 Joules
So, 8*4.18*10^15*1000 = 3.34 x10^19 Joules...


It seems that we need 6.7 x 10^12 times as many nuclear weapons as we currently have.
(or roughly, 13 thousand times as many nukes as we currently have for every square kilometer on the surface of the Earth)
No, we're not blowing up this planet anytime soon, even if we wanted to.


p.s. Even the 59 megaton Tsar Bomba was but a burp on the surface of the earth.
And, if all 36,800 of those warheads were as powerful as Tsar Bomba (biggest nuke ever detonated - Russia), we'd still need about 25,000 times as many nukes as we currently have.

so did you ignore the relevancy of my whole post? or just parts of it?

lets review:

i said "im sure humans could find a way to destroy earth by setting off a massive number of nukes, like millions or more, at the same time all around the globe."

that doesnt mean anything except exactly what it implies - IF we had millions of nukes...

what on earth does the gravitational binding energy have to do with this? i think you just wanted an excuse to post that. anyway, if you shoved millions of nukes in the ground, maybe 50 or 60 miles down, im sure it would have catastrophic effects. simply stated, my assumption was NOT incorrect...you just took it upon yourself to prove something, but im not sure what.

try taking comments in stride once in a while. it is possible to use humor in HT and not everything needs to be taken literally. my post wasnt serious at all - didnt you read the part about the giant pipe sucking the oceans out into space? :roll:

 

[lyssword]

this thread is funny Btw, chuck norris ftw

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: lyssword
this thread is funny Btw, chuck norris ftw

chuck norris could definitely explode the earth

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: lyssword
this thread is funny Btw, chuck norris ftw

chuck norris could definitely explode the earth

With the back of his left hand while he held a ninja clutched by the throat in his right!

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

lets review:

i said "im sure humans could find a way to destroy earth by setting off a massive number of nukes, like millions or more, at the same time all around the globe."

that doesnt mean anything except exactly what it implies - IF we had millions of nukes...

what on earth does the gravitational binding energy have to do with this? i think you just wanted an excuse to post that. anyway, if you shoved millions of nukes in the ground, maybe 50 or 60 miles down, im sure it would have catastrophic effects. simply stated, my assumption was NOT incorrect...you just took it upon yourself to prove something, but im not sure what.

try taking comments in stride once in a while. it is possible to use humor in HT and not everything needs to be taken literally. my post wasnt serious at all - didnt you read the part about the giant pipe sucking the oceans out into space? :roll:

Oh, yes, I did forget to mention that I was laughing quite loudly as I envisioned a giant straw sticking out into space from the ocean

But, we did say "destroy", not have "catastrophic effects."
No way in the world we could build enough nukes.

edit: I take that back, it didn't say "destroy", it said "complete destruction." And, for what it's worth, follow that link above to the top ten ways to destroy the earth... THAT was humorous

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Oh, yes, I did forget to mention that I was laughing quite loudly as I envisioned a giant straw sticking out into space from the ocean

But, we did say "destroy", not have "catastrophic effects."
No way in the world we could build enough nukes.

edit: I take that back, it didn't say "destroy", it said "complete destruction." And, for what it's worth, follow that link above to the top ten ways to destroy the earth... THAT was humorous

lol :beer: