What would happen if a small object travelling at light speed hit Earth? • Page 2

• Page

of 5

• elstoof 27 Nov 2012 09:42:57 18,493 posts
Seen 36 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago
 Could we ask Messi to volley it back into space?
• spindizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:44:09 7,646 posts
Seen 9 minutes ago
Registered 13 years ago
 RyanDS wrote: Cadence wrote: Wouldn't it need an infinite amount of energy to reach lightspeed in the first place? This. It could never reach lightspeed. At a reasonable percentage of lightspeed though we turn to wiki: A 1 kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT or approximately 32 megatons more than the theoretical max yield of the tsar bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. 1 kg of mass-energy is 8.99×1016 joules or about 21.5 megatons of TNT. Yep. And in case anyone else is interested, Wolfram Alpha is great for this kind of stuff: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=relativistic+kinetic+energy+&a=*C.relativistic+kinetic+energy-_*Formula.dflt-&a=*FS-_**KineticEnergyRelativisticFormula.K-.*KineticEnergyRelativisticFormula.m-.*KineticEnergyRelativisticFormula.v--&f3=1+kg&f=KineticEnergyRelativisticFormula.m_1+kg&f4=0.99+c&f=KineticEnergyRelativisticFormula.v_0.99+c The earth would survive I guess (and us too), but it wouldn't be a lot of fun...
• smoothpete 27 Nov 2012 09:44:24 34,208 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago
 I thought light had weight, otherwise why are black holes black?
• spindizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:44:44 7,646 posts
Seen 9 minutes ago
Registered 13 years ago
 nickthegun wrote: Wheres that CERN guy? Hes our Brian Cox. /waves (I'm better looking though)
• nickthegun 27 Nov 2012 09:46:08 71,648 posts
Seen 16 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago
 smoothpete wrote: I thought light had weight, otherwise why are black holes black? it does. everything has mass
• nickthegun 27 Nov 2012 09:47:32 71,648 posts
Seen 16 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago
 spindizzy wrote: nickthegun wrote: Wheres that CERN guy? Hes our Brian Cox. /waves (I'm better looking though) I will need to see a picture of your teeth before I can confirm that.
• sirtacos 27 Nov 2012 09:47:53 8,005 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
 Relativistic mass. Photons don't weigh shit. They don't lift, either Edited by sirtacos at 09:53:15 27-11-2012
• smoothpete 27 Nov 2012 09:50:52 34,208 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago
 nickthegun wrote: smoothpete wrote: I thought light had weight, otherwise why are black holes black? it does. everything has mass If it has mass and travels at light speed then I am told that it therefore must have infinite energy
• disusedgenius 27 Nov 2012 09:50:58 8,484 posts
Seen 41 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
 I'm amazed that no one has linked this yet!
• Dizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:54:24 3,422 posts
Seen 4 minutes ago
Registered 16 years ago
 MrTomFTW wrote: Nah, the closer something is to travelling at light speed, the closer it is to actually being light. That's why we think it's impossible to travel at light speed, because to move at the speed of light an object would need to have the mass of light. /could be getting this wrong. Lol? What? Travelling at the speed of light meens infinite mass.
• Whizzo 27 Nov 2012 09:56:32 44,758 posts
Seen 3 minutes ago
Registered 16 years ago
 Deckard1 wrote: Does time have mass? Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.
• the_dudefather 27 Nov 2012 09:57:17 10,420 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago
 Imagine four steel footballs on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the ball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of balls and takes the place of the first ball. The formerly first ball becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.
• mrpon 27 Nov 2012 10:00:46 33,615 posts
Seen 9 minutes ago
Registered 11 years ago
• smoothpete 27 Nov 2012 10:00:47 34,208 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago
 disusedgenius wrote: I'm amazed that no one has linked this yet! YES thank you! Basically it fucks it to oblivion.
• nickthegun 27 Nov 2012 10:00:58 71,648 posts
Seen 16 minutes ago
Registered 12 years ago
 Imagine two steel footballs, one at the top of the empire state building, one on the ground. After 50 years the football on the ground would be a tiny fraction of a second older than the one on the roof because gravity effects the way time works. I know thats not really got anything to do with anything, but its one of my few physics facts.
• neilka 27 Nov 2012 10:02:39 20,455 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 12 years ago
 Do none of you have jobs?
• sport 27 Nov 2012 10:06:21 13,960 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 12 years ago
 I think Schwarzkopf postulated that time can be seen as strands.
• opalw00t 27 Nov 2012 10:07:05 12,793 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years ago
 In answer to the original question, here is an answer for if a 100 foot wide lump of diamond hit the Earth at near light-speed. (also read the rest, they are interesting) Edit: Beaten to the punch! Edited by w00t at 10:07:36 27-11-2012
• AcidSnake 27 Nov 2012 10:12:56 7,876 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 11 years ago
 I thought photons were actually a wave but for some reason they behave as though they have mass?
• hypernova 27 Nov 2012 10:14:29 1,965 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 12 years ago
 Further to the photon/mass thing, apparently there's more than one usage of the word mass in physics.
• sirtacos 27 Nov 2012 10:15:14 8,005 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
 They behave as both waves and particles because quantum physics says fuck you. Also Peter Dinklage is 43 so maybe we should ask him because clearly he's solved the OP's problem 13 years ago. Edited by sirtacos at 10:20:15 27-11-2012
• AcidSnake 27 Nov 2012 10:16:32 7,876 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 11 years ago
 sirtacos wrote: They behave as both waves and particles because quantum physics says fuck you. Or does it?
• sirtacos 27 Nov 2012 10:16:57 8,005 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
• MrTomFTW Best Moderator, 2016 27 Nov 2012 10:19:57 47,066 posts
Seen 3 minutes ago
Registered 15 years ago
 Dizzy wrote: MrTomFTW wrote: Nah, the closer something is to travelling at light speed, the closer it is to actually being light. That's why we think it's impossible to travel at light speed, because to move at the speed of light an object would need to have the mass of light. /could be getting this wrong. Lol? What? Travelling at the speed of light meens infinite mass. Yeah, I had got mixed up with something I heard years ago. Then I found that video and went "Oh yeah, shit..."
• S.J.Rogers 27 Nov 2012 10:19:59 3,593 posts
Seen 11 months ago
Registered 12 years ago
• Page

of 5

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.