PDA

View Full Version : How to destory the earth



alterion
03-06-2005, 20:28
http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html
one of the best things i have read scince the last random link i posted... if someone whould like to help in creating a 40k list of things that could destory the earth to add to the fictional seciton i am sure he would appreciate it.

Minister
03-06-2005, 20:44
It strikes me that giving me that link may have been a bad idea...

alterion
03-06-2005, 20:46
well i dount it that considereing that the most rapid method could not be completed for another 20 years.. and that one was of questionable authority

Rathgar
03-06-2005, 20:48
I love stuff like this!!

Cheers for the link. No evil genius should be without it.

I most liked; the earth statistics being titled "know your enemy"

Sojourner
03-06-2005, 21:04
LOL at the 'microscopic black hole' method...

"You will need: a microscopic black hole"

PBGhost
03-06-2005, 21:16
Lol! Read the 'Other, less scientifically feasible methods' and 'Things that will not destroy the Earth.' While the whole page is hilarious, these contain the most compact humour.

Snoozer
03-06-2005, 21:20
This was excatly what I needed, Thanks

*goes of to plan the destruction of earth*

MUHAHAHAA MUHAHAHAHAAA MU*cough*HAHA...

:D

Kelroth
03-06-2005, 23:40
Why would we want to destory the earth? There's many a good tale to be found..

tzeentchgiant
03-06-2005, 23:43
Funny, in that, makes me think about destroying the world funny.

TG

The pestilent 1
04-06-2005, 11:10
Number of scientific experiments currently underway with the potential to bring about the Earth's destruction: 0
actually some scientists seriously doubt whether pissing about with anti-matter (protons etc etc) is a good idea.
one theory goes that if it existslong enough to strik any piece of matter of any real size (IE:anything big enough to get it to stop) then it go boom.
big boom.
REAL big boom.

not that thats stopped us but hey, felt itd be worth mentioning.

Still, some great ideas for my Universal domination plan right here...

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 11:25
That's no theory, an anti matter-matter reaction, of any scale (seriously atomic level) would release enough energy to at least wipe out all humans (I think, better check my facts)

TG

The pestilent 1
04-06-2005, 11:34
hmm, yeah id forgotten that particle accelorators were vacums...
i guess it could, its been some time since i read up on anti-matter.

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 11:58
Nope! When a particle and an antiparticle collide they annihilate each other. Annihilation is the conversion of matter to energy.

They give off a lot of energy. But a single partial/anti particle collision isn't going to be enough to destroy a planet!

Its been a while since A-level physics but I think this lot is right:

So for example if a proton and antiproton collided.

Mass of a proton= 1.672x10^-27kg
C (speed of light) = 3x10^8

E=mc^2

E=2mc^2 (coz there are 2 masses here )

E= 2 x 1.672 x 10^-27 x (3 x 10^8)^2

E= 3.01 x 10^-10 J

athamas
04-06-2005, 12:02
yeah thats the correct numbers!



edit:



however, 2 g of hydrogen mixing with 2 g or antihyrdogen, will release, 3.626 * 10^ 14 J of energy!


thats rather alot!


this means you would need ~6*10^17 bundels of this to destroy the eart,.. being highly conservative!


not gona happen!

The pestilent 1
04-06-2005, 12:07
There was a theory that said that if an anti-proton (matter etc etc) collided with a "true" proton (matter etc etc) then there was a chance that the collision would cause an explosion in the 4th dimension or somesuch.
as i say, its been a while since i read the article (one of the scientific journals from 2000/2001)

though, to my knowledge no matter/antimatter reactions have ever actually happened, due in part to the fact that at the very least the accelorator would be totally wrecked (seen how expensive those things are!)

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 12:07
So hypothetic how much antimatter would we need to destroy earth?

What kind of energy are we talking to total the planet?

If we've got that figure we can work back and find how much antimatter we'd need.

athamas
04-06-2005, 12:10
they have done some proton ant proton collisions, and created.. i think 7 antihydrogen atoms....

they produce nice interesting particles when they colide, hence the reason for doing so,!



however, it is very difficult to creat a single anti proton, let alone a sizeable buch to do much other than observe them!

athamas
04-06-2005, 12:16
rite.. i think you would need about 7.3*10^42 anti protons to destroy the eath!....


whch is ?1.2*10^13 tones of anti hydrogen...



however this much anti matter would anniholte a sizable chunk of the earth anyway, because for every antiproton you send, you can take 1 proton of mass out of the equation!

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 12:20
Interesting! Thanks athamas.

@ The pestilent 1, anit the 4th dimension time? I'm getting out of my league here, I'm just a biologist :(

Sojourner
04-06-2005, 12:41
The 4th dimension thing is all highly speculative. What I think you're referring to is a strangelet - a stable superparticle made entirely out of lots of quarks which consumes ordinary matter. They've never been observed and there's no solid theory of their existence - most particle physicists see this as mere scaremongering.

Wraith
04-06-2005, 12:41
Please explain the idea of 'flipping' matter through a fourth dimension to instantly turn it into antimatter?

athamas
04-06-2005, 12:43
hmmm that would require alot of energy to build in the first place, esp. as quarks like to go around in stale 3's....

i think they can only come in pairs or 3's.... due to their colour..


you could have 6 of them i guess, but then would it be 3 quark-anti quark pairs, or 2 triples...



hmm interesting idea!

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 14:08
One atom, has a much larger mass than an electrons, so imagine a uranium reacting with an anti-uranium, I think that's enough energy to destroy a rather large portion of earth.

back in a sec

TG

Sojourner
04-06-2005, 14:10
A single atom and anti-atom will do bugger all. You have to get a concept of the scales involved here.

The pestilent 1
04-06-2005, 19:00
@ The pestilent 1, anit the 4th dimension time? I'm getting out of my league here, I'm just a biologist :(

it is yes, (actually, the theory states that so are the 5th and 6th, just in differant forms)

it did kind of confuse me how time would do that, but i think it meant a dimension where not used to rather than any specific one (IE: maybe the 7th 8th or 9th, i dont remember what the theory says about them so possibly?)

athamas
04-06-2005, 19:49
One atom, has a much larger mass than an electrons, so imagine a uranium reacting with an anti-uranium, I think that's enough energy to destroy a rather large portion of earth.

TG

ooo so now we only need.. um ~ 3*10^12 tomes of anti uranium to kill as all...

first we have to make it......


yeah like thats gona happen!






matter - anti-matter anniholations produce alot of enerey on an atomic level...


however, you need lots of anti matter to have any effect on anything in our reality... and by lots on talking about a few ng


however this is several billion billion anti atoms....

grey_painter
04-06-2005, 20:08
Mike Trainor writes, "Just because we don't have the technology to destroy the planet doesn't mean no one else in the universe does. What you need to do is to point our most powerful radio-telescope transmitters at likely solar systems and taunt them. 'The girly-beings in your miserable solar system could never destroy a planet as cool as this one...'" Thanks, Mike. We'll get SETI on it.

That was the best moment for me. And my favourite method.

*sets about making a really big radio transmitter*

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 20:19
A single atom and anti-atom will do bugger all. You have to get a concept of the scales involved here.


I think he's under the impression that you can see an atom under a microscope.

TG, an atom of Hydrogen has a radius of about 0.0000000000046m.

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 20:55
Screw the lot of you, I gave up all my chemistry and physics knowledge the second I left the exam, which isn't very good as I'm taking Advance higher physics next year.

So sue me if I was a bit off, also, Athamas, I wouldn't take that much Uranium/anti uranium to detroy us, a fision reaction with that much uranium would kill us all (I think, I might do some calculations).

TG

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 21:38
Again not right. A fission reaction gives out LESS energy than a matter/antimatter annihilation. What happens (and I'm really dredging my memory here.) is that a large unstable nuclei decays into 2 smaller elements.

However the mass of the fission products is smaller than that of the original nuclei. The missing mass is termed mass defect. Which is converted into energy, so thatís why fission gives off heat basically.

Remember than in a matter/antimatter annihilation ALL THE MASS is converted into energy.


We werenít being nasty TG, just correcting your misinterpretations. We're not trying to lord it over you because we just happen to know a bit more about physics, there's probably loads of stuff you know more about than us, so donít get all grumpy. We're all friends on portent. ;)

Its fairly common for people to misunderstand science (don't get me started on viruses or GM), You're now that little but wiser as to the workings of the Universe. :D

Hell, maybe this'll even help with your higher physics next year.

athamas
04-06-2005, 21:47
you must also not confuse fission and fusion

fission is splittig big heavy atoms, fusion is combing smaller atoms,

its to do with binding energy,


what you may be thinking about is ppl's concern for uncontrolable fusion reactions.. .like spiderman


however this is impossible, as the quantities involved will not sustain fusion, unless external forces are aplied, and if it goes wrong, well about 3g of 40000k matter comes into contact with about 25tonnes of 200K matter, [and alot of 3-5K matter]resulting in the fusion generator jumping about a foot of the ground.. and then freezing up!


ie, it aint gona go crazy mad death ness!

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 21:51
Sorry, I didn't mean to come of as aggresive, but I did, I do apologise (that seems to be all I do on these forums)

Also I am aware that a fission reaction gives out tiny amounts of energy compared to an Antimatter/matter reaction, I was just pointing out that athamas' estimate was as gross an overexageration in terms of scale as mine was an underestimate.

I will edit in some info into this later

EDIT:

It would take 360 nuclear weapons to wipe out life on the planet (cover the entire earth's land mass surfaces with deadly radiation)

In an average nuclear warhead there are ten ounces of plutonium-239, now ten ounces=roughly 283 grams.

Therefore 360*283/100 = 1018.8kg, just over one tonne of Plutonium, in fission reactions to destroy the world.

I rest my case. (this may be wrong though :p , as the number of nukes required may be innacurate)


Also I'm taking ADVANCED higher physics next year

He he, man I feel stupid

TG

athamas
04-06-2005, 22:01
um... I AM doing a physcs Masters degree currently!

and matter -antimatter reactions do produce a shead load of energy!

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 22:06
Please read my edit, that is coorect (maybe the number of nukes is wrong) but 3*10^12 tonnes is an outragious estimate, if you want to destroy us all 3000000000000 times over then feel free, but that much is not required,

I'm just trying to show your estimate was grossly wrong (just as mine was)

I don't want to start an arguement, but I thought this was the best way to put my point across.

I await your feedback with anticipation.

TG

EDIT: the aggresive part wasn't directed at you athamas, I was just correcting rathgar.

athamas
04-06-2005, 22:11
we are talking about different things here, you are talking about killing all human life on the planet


im talking about removing the planet from existance.. turning it into little chunks the size of your house!!!!


the energy in nukes is not that much, but the radiation has nasty effects on pathetic mortals!

tzeentchgiant
04-06-2005, 22:13
Right, so I'm answering the wrong thing.

Hence why I was so off in all my other estimates.

Please ignore all my previous posts,

I really do feel stupid now.

I'm retiring to the bin bar club now, anyone who wants to berate my physics abilities can join me there. (please do join me, this ****'s getting heavy)

TG

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 22:14
the energy in nukes is not that much, but the radiation has nasty effects on pathetic mortals!

Life'd survive. It always survives.

They'd be some Archae sitting in a rock somewhere deep underground merrily metabolising away. Waiting to start over again.

The pestilent 1
04-06-2005, 22:17
yes.
to be sure you must turn the constituent atoms of the entire planet to mush.
and then burn it, stamp on it and do further generally nasty things until absolutely certain!

Rathgar
04-06-2005, 22:20
yes.
to be sure you must turn the constituent atoms of the entire planet to mush.
and then burn it, stamp on it and do further generally nasty things until absolutely certain!

I think this thread brings out the worst in us! :D I'm giving you a rep point for that fit of evil.

So back on topic. Destroying the earth and all life on it, what's looking like or best bet so far? Is destabilizing her orbit and sending her into the sun a viable option?

EDIT: My 100th post was about destorying the earth. Nice.

The pestilent 1
05-06-2005, 00:35
ah, i knew that utter contempt for life, the universe and everything (the things, not the book) would come in handy eventually :p

edit: the sad thing? that just made my week.
says alot about the last week doesnt it.

Rabid Bunny 666
05-06-2005, 00:41
tis cool, but i'd just do the simpler thing and just reset the big communications arrays to ust send out hatemail and spam to aliens so they just waste earth anyways, flawlesss, no?

The pestilent 1
05-06-2005, 00:54
yes!
lets crazy-frog those flipping eeties, see how long they keep us in the dark about the nature of things then!

Rabid Bunny 666
05-06-2005, 01:01
you get a rep point my friend

or we could TECHNO/RAVE them to death

mua hah ha!

The pestilent 1
05-06-2005, 01:04
lets see how they covert those dyson spheres and revolutionary healing aides when we make their brains turn to mush with a three pronged, Sweetie the chick / Crazy frog/ nessie the dragon assault.

speaking of brains turning to mush, im up two hours later than i reasonably should.
and i get two rep points from the ensuing insanity.. :eyebrows:
oh well. to bed.

Rabid Bunny 666
05-06-2005, 01:06
hehe, nighty night

there must be mre annoying songs, hmm........................

AHA!

s-club seven released CDs, that'll provoke 'em nicely

The pestilent 1
05-06-2005, 01:08
Eminem..
61.54% of all people (that matter anyways) think hes worse than a poke in the eye...

(i lied. no sleep for moe, unfinished business again)

athamas
05-06-2005, 08:36
you know, that would be such an easier way of doing it... but then they muight see the transmisions, and run!


im mean would you want to go to a place that was irradiating the universe with that!

Rathgar
05-06-2005, 10:19
The radio transitions are a serious point. But you have to remember that they only travel at the speed of light. I think the first radio transmission was in 1895? Ok so that 200 years we've been pumping garbage into space, so it'll have been expanding like a bubble. Like sending up a flare (bad analogy, but hey).

The speed of light is C = 3 x 10^8 M per sec

1 light year = 9.4605284 ◊ 10^15 meters (thank you Google)

And it's the distance it takes light to travel in a year, so our bubble is 200 light years in radius. So only Alien civilisations which have a means of detecting radio transitions within the bubble know we're here.

Considering the milky way is 100,000 light years across and 3000 deep, and that we're flung over on one side of it. It may be a while before we ****-off an ancient alien species with the crazy frog and the come and blast apart our beloved terra.

Having said that they could well be one within the bubble and they could already be on the way...

athamas
05-06-2005, 10:27
the first transmitions were not powerfull enough to penetrat the upper atmospher, IIRC the only transmitters able to do that we produced in 1935 ish... so only 70 lightyears really...



kinda worrying !

Rathgar
05-06-2005, 10:45
Ah right, forgive my n00bness at physics.

So looks like we're gonna have to destroy ourseleves then.

The pestilent 1
05-06-2005, 13:58
or we wait a long. long time.
im willing to wait to see the utter annihalation of man.
or maybe we could write down (in gold, or somthing) a huge message to future generations.


Dear: future people.
out time sucks.
really, really sucks!
could you maybe, possibly use your time travel (if time travel isnt discovered yet, please re-bury this) and make our time a bit better?
or better yet just erase it completely?
hows that?

Sojourner
05-06-2005, 13:58
Rath - nope. You'd have to get rid of (gravitational constant x mass of earth x mass of sun)/distance to sun joules of potential energy to get the earth to crash into the sun. Destabilising an orbit is not easy.