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

  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

  • Deckard1 27 Nov 2012 09:42:44 27,024 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Ok so if a giant space robot football team kicked a football at the earth, how fast would it need to be going to destroy the planet?
  • elstoof 27 Nov 2012 09:42:57 6,585 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Could we ask Messi to volley it back into space?
  • spindizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:44:09 6,427 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 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 5.471017 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 8.991016 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 31,308 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought light had weight, otherwise why are black holes black?
  • spindizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:44:44 6,427 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 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 58,777 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    smoothpete wrote:
    I thought light had weight, otherwise why are black holes black?
    it does. everything has mass

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • nickthegun 27 Nov 2012 09:47:32 58,777 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 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.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • sirtacos 27 Nov 2012 09:47:53 7,267 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Relativistic mass. Photons don't weigh shit.

    They don't lift, either

    Edited by sirtacos at 09:53:15 27-11-2012
  • LeoliansBro 27 Nov 2012 09:48:13 43,114 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Gravity affects everything, but the measure of impact it has is dependent on mass.

    Happy to be corrected on that as I know gravity is a tricksy bitch, and doesn't fit the standard model.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • smoothpete 27 Nov 2012 09:50:52 31,308 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 10 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 5,195 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm amazed that no one has linked this yet!
  • Deckard1 27 Nov 2012 09:51:53 27,024 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Does time have mass?
  • Dizzy 27 Nov 2012 09:54:24 2,566 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 12 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 43,031 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Does time have mass?
    Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • the_dudefather 27 Nov 2012 09:57:17 9,177 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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.

    (ง ͠ ͟ʖ ͡)

  • mrpon 27 Nov 2012 10:00:46 28,400 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • smoothpete 27 Nov 2012 10:00:47 31,308 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 10 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 58,777 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 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.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deckard1 27 Nov 2012 10:01:30 27,024 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Time is effected by gravity (time moves slower the closer you are to something with mass) therefore time must have mass to be effected by this no?

    This stuff fucking baffles me.
  • neilka 27 Nov 2012 10:02:39 15,617 posts
    Seen 9 seconds ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Do none of you have jobs?
  • sport 27 Nov 2012 10:06:21 12,497 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think Schwarzkopf postulated that time can be seen as strands.
  • w00t 27 Nov 2012 10:07:05 11,045 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 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

    The day charity died - NEVER FORGET

    (the mic was OK in the end)

  • Deckard1 27 Nov 2012 10:07:22 27,024 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    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.
    Its why midgets only live until they're about 30.
  • AcidSnake 27 Nov 2012 10:12:56 7,211 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I thought photons were actually a wave but for some reason they behave as though they have mass?

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • hypernova 27 Nov 2012 10:14:29 1,967 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 9 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 7,267 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 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 7,211 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    They behave as both waves and particles because quantum physics says fuck you.
    Or does it?

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • sirtacos 27 Nov 2012 10:16:57 7,267 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    :)
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 27 Nov 2012 10:19:57 37,295 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 11 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..."

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • S.J.Rogers 27 Nov 2012 10:19:59 3,557 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    This will help you all..!
  • Page

    of 5 First / Last

Log in or register to reply