How to destroy the Earth

[HydrogenBond]

There is an easier way that requires very little energy but results in a new earth. As an example of this affect, when Copernicus demonstrated the earth was not the center of the universe, he destroyed the universe of old. It used to be centered on the earth and populated with gods. With a little reality check, that universe was destroyed.

 

Let me give a hypothetical example, to show what I mean with respect to the modern earth. Say someone proved the earth had a thermonuclear core, as an example, which dis not behave the way current theory predicts. That would not only destroy the intellectual earth but also the sun and the solar system. Reality is perception.

 

At one time animals were possessed with spirits. After DNA and biology, these spirits were destroyed and traded places with biochemicals. It would have been caculated that it would have taken many legions of angels to neutralize all these spirits, in its day. But it was done with a microscope and very little energy output.

 

I would like to see someone prove the iron core of the earth with an actual core sample. Forget about all that circumstantial evidence, it is self forfilling. It is just a guess that is percieved to be reality. Based on this perception of reality, we try to make all the other relative theories appear to support this. Even supernova have to make iron because we need that to support the iron core premise. If we precieved the earh had an carbon core, nova would make that for us.

 

If you look at particle accelerators or atom smashers, this scenario does not even reflect the reality of the high density and gravity in a star. The former is a fast collision and the other is a more stationary-dense interaction. If these two scenaris don't add up it should not be a big surprise. But it comes down to perception of reality, that then gets propped up until we forget it is a guess.

 

If we ran an accelerator experiment, where the two particle streams just miss each other and continue to go in the opposite directions, this is closer to the BB, especially with inflation and space-time expansion. One would not get away near the same particle diversity. Yet, it doesn't matter, since reality is based on perception. The square peg will fit into the round hole if you hit it enough times. It started square but now it is round.

[InfiniteNow]

Think about it, what *would* it take?

Nothing.

 

We seem to be doing a fine job at it simply maintaining the status quo.

[freeztar]

There is an easier way that requires very little energy but results in a new earth. As an example of this affect, when Copernicus demonstrated the earth was not the center of the universe, he destroyed the universe of old. It used to be centered on the earth and populated with gods. With a little reality check, that universe was destroyed.

 

Let me give a hypothetical example, to show what I mean with respect to the modern earth. Say someone proved the earth had a thermonuclear core, as an example, which dis not behave the way current theory predicts. That would not only destroy the intellectual earth but also the sun and the solar system. Reality is perception.

 

At one time animals were possessed with spirits. After DNA and biology, these spirits were destroyed and traded places with biochemicals. It would have been caculated that it would have taken many legions of angels to neutralize all these spirits, in its day. But it was done with a microscope and very little energy output.

 

These are very good points and would make for a good thread in the "philosophy of science" or "philosophy" forums. :)

I would like to see someone prove the iron core of the earth with an actual core sample.

 

Wouldn't we all! Unfortunately it seems highly unlikely, at best, that we will ever be able to physically sample the Earth's core. Unless we destroy it of course. ;)

 

Forget about all that circumstantial evidence, it is self forfilling. It is just a guess that is percieved to be reality. Based on this perception of reality, we try to make all the other relative theories appear to support this. Even supernova have to make iron because we need that to support the iron core premise. If we precieved the earh had an carbon core, nova would make that for us.

 

:shade:

Science is not based on "circumstantial evidence", nor is it a "guess".

The hydrogen core discussion in this same forum is a good place to learn about the science behind the iron core theory.

If you look at particle accelerators or atom smashers, this scenario does not even reflect the reality of the high density and gravity in a star. The former is a fast collision and the other is a more stationary-dense interaction.

 

While physics is better discussed in its appropriated forum, I'll briefly point out that you are making some sweeping assumptions. I'd be happy to discuss it more in it's own thread in the Physics forum. :)

 

If these two scenaris don't add up it should not be a big surprise. But it comes down to perception of reality, that then gets propped up until we forget it is a guess.

 

No, perception of reality is not a big surprise. Science is based in reality (or the perception thereof).

 

If we ran an accelerator experiment, where the two particle streams just miss each other and continue to go in the opposite directions, this is closer to the BB, especially with inflation and space-time expansion. One would not get away near the same particle diversity. Yet, it doesn't matter, since reality is based on perception. The square peg will fit into the round hole if you hit it enough times. It started square but now it is round.

 

Is it really appropriate to conflict with modern physics endeavors in this thread? :shrug:

On the other hand, if you want to brainstorm a particle accelerator destruction of the Earth, I'd be game for that. :hyper:

[freeztar]

Nothing.

 

We seem to be doing a fine job at it simply maintaining the status quo.

 

While I understand, and appreciate, your point IN, our status quo could NEVER destroy (as in obliterate to pieces) this fabulous rock. :shade:

Of course, we might could kill everything and could potentially destroy ecology as we know it, but 'tis a different topic (arguably more morbid due to human potential). :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

While I understand, and appreciate, your point IN, our status quo could NEVER destroy (as in obliterate to pieces) this fabulous rock. :)

 

I don't disagree with you on the fabulosity of our rock, but I do challenge you to bet on the suggested "neverness" surrounding our ability to destory it.

 

 

 

:shrug::shade::hyper:

[freeztar]

I don't disagree with you on the fabulosity of our rock, but I do challenge you to bet on the suggested "neverness" surrounding our ability to destory it.

 

Of course, never is never absolute. :shade:

 

I'd put it somewhere around 1:10^99 maybe. That's close to the amount of board combinations in the Chinese game of Go (according to this month's PopSci; which also says the possibilities will never (as in "not very likely" :shrug: ) be broken).

 

On what odds would you wager?

[InfiniteNow]

I'd rather play Go than wager odds.

 

If things stay as is... the odds are absolute on destruction.

If rationality triumphs over faith, the odds are better for life.

If community triumphs over the religion which often forms it, the odds are even better.

If rationality and community somehow come together, then I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

If bright minds are encouraged and rewarded.... Well... then, you'll see those playing Go beside you and I over a few IPAs.

 

 

 

:shade:

[freeztar]

If things stay as is... the odds are absolute on destruction.

 

But not as it applies to this thread. :shade:

 

An IPA sounds good, and Go!

[nkt]

But not as it applies to this thread. :evil:

 

Exactly. Whilst the status quo might well kill off every last man, women and (unlikely) cockroach on the ball of rock, it will certainly leave the ball almost entirely unaffected.

 

And, of course, a few degrees of global warming, or cooling a few degrees, will leave to little of real effect for most of us. Sure, millions might die, but then millions die every year, and the totals, so far, have dropped most years, rather than increased.

[CraigD]

PS: Post #1’s link to Sam Huge’s “how to destroy the Earth” webpage is broken. Here’s its 3/2/2005 archive, and its latest (7/11/2007) one.

Think about it, what *would* it take [to physically disintegrate the Earth] ?

Huge and the several hypographer’s over several years appear to me right on the subject – literally blasting the Earth into never-to-reform rubble would NOT be easy.

 

By my very rough model, the total gravitational potential energy of the Earth (that is, how much GPE was lost by all of its little pieces when the fell together to form it) is about [math]1.8 \times 10^{32} \,\mbox{J}[/math] (not too far from UncleAl’s wikipedia figure of [math]1.8 \times 10^{32} \,\mbox{J}[/math], so my model appears not too rough after all ;)). This is a lot of energy – about 5.4 days of the Sun’s total energy output. Assuming, then, that the Earth is held together by nothing more than gravity (not, I think, an unreasonable assumption, for estimating purposes), and that you could somehow perfectly apply the energy to exploding it, you’d need to use a minimum of that much energy to completely take it apart. Per my model again, it doesn’t much matter what size rubble – reducing it to tiny pieces takes only slightly more energy than reducing it to moon-size chunks.

 

I can only imagine a few ways to accomplishing this:

• A giant impactor
  
• An antimatter bomb
  
• A small, ultra dense (black hole-ish) object
  

Giant impactor approach

[math]1.8 \times 10^{32} \,\mbox{J} \dot = \frac{1}{2} 0.0026 \,\mbox{M}_{\mbox{E}} (150000 \mbox{m/s})^2[/math], so a body around the mass and initial position of Pluto, nudged to fall inward, then be deflected into a retrograde orbit that exactly strikes Earth, would be just about the minimum necessary.

 

Getting all of an impactor’s kinetic energy to accelerate each bit of Earth equally seems undoable – some pieces would almost certainly get much more, other much less, so what would result from this would likely be a debris cloud a significant fraction of Earth’s original mass that would eventually recoalesce into a smaller planet/ring/moon system (likely in very interesting ways). You might even just “punch a hole” in the Earth, and wind up with no worse than a topsy-turvy jumbled-up reconfigured Earth with nothing worse than “capsized tectonic places, a century or two or planetary rings and constant meteorite showers, a new moon or two, etc. Though not a total disintegration, I’d say any of these scenarios still qualifies, or come pretty close to qualifying, as “destroying the Earth”.

 

Getting a [math]1.6 \times 10^{22} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] Kuiper belt object to hit the Earth would be a colossal, though not IMHO inconceivable, project. You’d likely have to directly force small bodies (using a spacecraft-based approach like that being considered by groups such as the B612 Foundation, use these to alter the orbit of larger ones, etc., until you can put one of the largest KBO onto a that takes it into just the right grazing path with one or more giant planets to accomplish the final, weird change to a retrograde Earth collision orbit.

 

Antimatter bomb approach

[math]1.8 \times 10^{32} \,\mbox{J} / c^2 \dot= 2 \times 10^{15} \,\mbox{kg}[/math], so half this mass of antimatter annihilating with matter meets the minimum-to-disintegrate the Earth threshold. [math]10^{15} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] is a lot, but not astronomically – about 167,000 Great Pyramids, all the practical coal reserves on Earth, 40 Iceberg B-12s, or a 12 km diameter sphere of water.

 

Since there’s essentially no naturally occurring antimatter, this would have to be manufactured. Taking the most optimistic estimated for anti-matter factory efficiency (about 0.01%), to manufacture this much antimatter, you’d need about 2 years of the Sun’s total power. To get anything like this, you’ve got to do space solar power engineering on a scale requiring the dismantling of at least major asteroid-size bodies, put them in the closest possible solar orbit, build giant factories in space, etc.

 

Anybody who could do this could think of much more effective ways of messing with the Earth than blowing it up. ;)

 

Black hole-ish approach

Celebrated in several works of science fiction (notably James Hogans 1980 “Thrice Upon A Time” Greg Bear’s 1987 “The Forge of God”), this approach requires some super-material engineering technology, with which you somehow make an very dense object, and drop it into the Earth. Due to friction, its subterranean orbit should quickly become nearly stationary at the Earth’s core, where it will begin stripping matter from the less dense core and behaving like a neutron star, gaining degenerate matter and radiating x-ray and more energetic radiation. Depending on complicated factors, something awful – the Earth becoming a tiny neutron star – will happen sooner or later.

 

This isn’t a true disintegration – Earth likely won’t lose much mass – but it renders the Earth entirely inhospitable to present-day human life, so I’d say qualifies as “destroying the Earth”.

 

In short, with any of these approaches, we’re talking super science and engineering, likely (at least for the giant impactor approach) centuries of it. This isn’t accomplishable today, or likely in a human generation. Given the resources it would take to do such a thing, it’d likely require the cooperation of all of humankind, which, for a “destroy the Earth” project, seems very unlikely.

 

PS: Post #2’s and Huge’s “direct the Earth into the sun” approach requires about 10 time the energy of a direct “explode it” approach. The Hohmann transfer orbit for 1 AU ([math]1.5 \times 10^{11} \,\mbox{m}[/math]) to grazing the Sun’s surface ([math]7 \times 10^{8} \,\mbox{m}[/math] requires an initial speed change of about 26877 m/s, a [math]2.2 \times 10^{33} \,\mbox{J}[/math] kinetic energy change.

[nkt]

Whoa! I'd be very careful, putting such dangerous terrorist aiding documents onto the intarwebs. :) They might read them and destroy the earth. Or homeland insecurity might see it, and then you'd be in even more trouble! :(

 

(Seriously, the above is a joke. Just like homesec.)

 

My favourite method is the charge destroyer. Simply build a charge destroyer, and destroy all the (say) electrons. Watch from a distance as the earth flies apart under the force of the electrostatic repulsion. :eek2:

[REASON]

This question is easy.

 

All you have to do is build a Death Star.

 

:phones:

[peter]

For method # 5, overspun.

It is easy. All people run from east to west at the same time.

[alexander]

I got the easiest solution for the destruction of earth: just keep on doing what we are doing with pollution and overpopulation.... not too hard to continue, and hey in some 100 years, who knows...

[CraigD]

I got the easiest solution for the destruction of earth: just keep on doing what we are doing with pollution and overpopulation.... not too hard to continue, and hey in some 100 years, who knows...

The original post and linked article (best use this archived copy, as the 2005 link appears broken) explicitly qualifies that “destroy” means “physically disintegrate” vs. just render unable to support human life, or support it well.

 

The closest thing I’ve encountered to a proposal that simply continuing with our irresponsible polluting ways might physically damage the Earth itself, as opposed to the life infesting it, involved the “Venus syndrome”, a speculative theory that runaway greenhouse effect might make the earth retain so much heat that the seas were evaporated and the surface made molten. After a brief, alarming, very speculative heyday in the 1970s, the theory was generally discredited and abandoned, as it appears that runaway greenhouse effect can’t be nearly that bad.

 

Even that doesn’t qualify as “destruction”, in the strict sense used by the OP. Actually taking apart a world, it appears, takes much more than just irresponsibility and neglect.

[alexander]

100 years also gives time for evolution of machines.... you have watched the matrix and the terminator, right?

 

We could always get hit by a lingering comet, it neednt be more then a quarter mile in diameter either....

 

besides at the rate we are starting new wars.... in a hundred years there is a high chance of us destroying our planet ourselves, too.

[freeztar]

100 years also gives time for evolution of machines.... you have watched the matrix and the terminator, right?

Those movies were both about a fight for humanity, not the Earth.

 

We could always get hit by a lingering comet, it neednt be more then a quarter mile in diameter either....

 

As As Craig discussed several posts back, an impactor around the size of Pluto would be the minimum necessary and the tech neeeded to pull it off is not likely to come about for quite some time, if ever.

besides at the rate we are starting new wars.... in a hundred years there is a high chance of us destroying our planet ourselves, too.

 

Fighting each other is counter-productive to obliterating the Earth imo. :hihi: