Notices
Results 1 to 66 of 66
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Explosive Issue

  1. #1 Explosive Issue 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4
    Can anyone explain how it is that a star and planet like Earth (see Wim van Westrenen "The Day Earth Exploded"-dailymail for the latter) can explode but not a giant planet? This is baffling and puzzling to me because it defies logic. Also, wouldn't a smaller body require less energy to blow up than a big one?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I have no idea how a planet like Earth could explode (it is still here, so I assume he is not saying it has exploded)..

    And what do you mean by "a star and planet like Earth"? The Earth is not a star.

    And, finally, if the Daily Mail said the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check. For some reason they sell it next to newspapers. That might have confused you.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    I have no idea where you read anything about a star exploding.
    I also have no idea where you got the idea that the Earth exploded. After, it's still, so far as I can tell, here.

    However, a quick Google search gives:
    Their idea is that centrifugal forces would have concentrated heavier elements such as uranium and thorium near the Earth’s surface on the equatorial plane. High concentrations of these radioactive elements can lead to nuclear chain reactions which can become supercritical if the concentrations are high enough.
    I.e. a georeactor that went critical.
    And bear in mind the force of the "explosion" was, relatively speaking, not necessarily that large:
    the Earth and Moon both formed from a rapidly spinning blob of molten rock. This blob was spinning so rapidly that the force of gravity only just overcame the centrifugal forces at work.

    I'm equally confused as to what you mean by "but not a giant planet".
    Where did that come into it?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Can you please provide a direct link?

    The Earth didn't simply "explode", it was hit (possibly) by a Mars-sized object early on, which created the Moon.

    Stars explode for a variety of reasons and in a variety of different ways depending on it's size and make-up, mostly because the pressure against gravity created by the fusion of elements stop when that fuel runs out and the sudden infall of matter creates huge amounts of energy.

    Even large planets are not big enough to have high enough pressure at their cores for elements to undergo fusion, so there is already an equilibrium between the pressure of gravity and the material strengths of the matter that makes up the planet.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    The link in my post is an article about what was referenced in the Daily Mail.

    My first thought was "It's the Mail, ergo it's bound to be crap/ misreported/ some crank", but apparently it's getting serious consideration (without the whole "ZOMG! The Earth EXPLODED!! hype).
    KALSTER likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Interesting. My first thought was, but it was liquid. But then I remembered this: Tokaimura Criticality Accident which could have exploded.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Interesting. My first thought was, but it was liquid. But then I remembered this: Tokaimura Criticality Accident which could have exploded.
    How could it have exploded? It's not that easy to make a fission bomb. It took the Manhattan project to do it.
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Interesting. My first thought was, but it was liquid. But then I remembered this: Tokaimura Criticality Accident which could have exploded.
    How could it have exploded? It's not that easy to make a fission bomb. It took the Manhattan project to do it.
    OK. Exploded may be an exaggeration.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4
    Whatever kind of newspaper the Daily Mail is, the report of this scientist's theory is probably accurate. I think it's a silly theory and I don't believe the Earth will ever explode, but the thing is the possiblity might be there for a planet the size or mass of the Earth to explode by itself given the right conditions, hypothetically. The process would be the same for a star: thermonuclear core collapse.
    The implication seems to be that it can only be a solid planet that can do this and, of course, there are supernovas and novas. If solid and gaseous bodies can explode, why not liquid ones, too?

    I can't provide a direct link but it's easy to access.
    Last edited by Rational Inquirer; August 5th, 2013 at 01:40 PM.
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational Inquirer View Post
    Whatever kind of newspaper the Daily Mail is, the report of this scientist's theory is probably accurate. I think it's a silly theory and I don't believe the Earth will ever explode, but the thing is the possiblity might be there for a planet the size or mass of the Earth to explode by itself given the right conditions, hypothetically. The process would be the same for a star: thermonuclear core collapse.
    Well, as I understood it, the explosion big enough to create the moon (hypothetically) was when the Earth was still liquid. That is what allowed a critical mass of radioactive material to gather.

    But there is at least one example of enough radioactive material being concentrated in one place on Earth to form a natural reactor: Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The implication seems to be that it can only be a solid planet that can do this and, of course, there are supernovas and novas.
    The mechanisms for nova and (the various types of supernovas) are all very different from this, though.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Any planet could be hit by a large object that could , with enough energy, make any planet explode when it was hit by it.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  13. #12  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4
    Strange,

    The problem with that is the Earth was never liquid. It would have to be a giant planet for that. Giant planets are called gaseous but they're actually liquid. Only their atmospheres are gaseous. But it could imply instead that liquid planets can explode and not smaller ones.

    Cosmic Traveller,

    Collisions between planets would be implausible because there's too much space between them.
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational Inquirer View Post
    The problem with that is the Earth was never liquid.
    From the article linked earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by MIT Technology Review
    This idea is that the Earth and Moon both formed from a rapidly spinning blob of molten rock.
    Collisions between planets would be implausible because there's too much space between them.
    They are now. The early solar system may have been far more chaotic.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Collisions between planets would be implausible because there's too much space between them.
    I was not refering to another planet hitting another planet but rather a large asteroid instead . Sorry that I was not clear.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  16. #15  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4
    Strange,

    I didn't read the article carefully. It does sound like a good theory. The Giant Impactor theory has too many problems with it. But it doesn't say the Earth was liquid, it says it was molten rock, which is not exactly the same as I understand it.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    I don't see how an explosion would accelerate material up to orbital velocity.
    An explosion could lift large amounts of material up to those sorts of distances, but it would just fall down again without a massive sideways kick.

    The giant impactor hitting a glancing blow could easily provide the orbital speed required.

    Personally, I prefer ideas based on the disk of matter that the earth formed from braking up late in the planets formation.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
     

  18. #17  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational Inquirer View Post
    But it doesn't say the Earth was liquid, it says it was molten rock, which is not exactly the same as I understand it.
    How do you understand it then?
    Why do you think molten rock is not liquid?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Rational Inquirer View Post
    The problem with that is the Earth was never liquid.
    I substantial part of the Earth, if not all of it, was molten i.e. liquid early in its formation. If this were not the case the iron catastrophe could not have occured. If molten rock is not liquid what state of matter is it?
    It would have to be a giant planet for that. Giant planets are called gaseous but they're actually liquid.
    Technically they are solid, liquid and gaseous. Jupiter, for example, is thought to have a solid core with about 20 Earth masses.

    Collisions between planets would be implausible because there's too much space between them.
    Collisions of planetesimals and of proto-planets is a necessary part of planetary formation as presently understood. As mentioned earlier by others the moon is believed to have formed following an impact of the proto-earth and a Mars sized body. The Caloris basin on Mercury is the result of a giant impact. The retrograde rotation of Venus may be the result of a planetary impact. The reverse axial tilt of Uranus is almost certainly the consequence of a massive impact. The system is replete with impacts at every scale.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    When a planet has sattelites, the planet doesn't get high pressure by the gravity.
    When a planet doesn't have any sattelite, the planet will get high pressure.

    The high pressure will make high heating area inside of the planet. Heating area will expand itself. This is the reason for the explosion of a star.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Above is just my thinking.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Maybe next time you could attempt rational thinking.
    It works wonders.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  23. #22  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    When a planet has sattelites, the planet doesn't get high pressure by the gravity.
    When a planet doesn't have any sattelite, the planet will get high pressure.

    The high pressure will make high heating area inside of the planet. Heating area will expand itself. This is the reason for the explosion of a star.
    And that is why both Venus and Mercury exploded.
    Strange likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    When a planet has sattelites, the planet doesn't get high pressure by the gravity.
    When a planet doesn't have any sattelite, the planet will get high pressure.
    You are mistaken. It turns out that the pressure within the planet is a consequence of the mass of the planet. A planet with a satellite will actually have a fractionally lower pressure because of the gravitational attraction of the satellite.

    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    The high pressure will make high heating area inside of the planet. Heating area will expand itself. This is the reason for the explosion of a star.
    The temperature within a planet is a consequence of gravitational collapse, impact and radioactivity. The pressures within planets have no relationship to the explosions of stars. Stellar explosions are caused by a variety of conditions, for which we have a decent broad understanding.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The temperature within a planet is a consequence of gravitational collapse, impact and radioactivity. The pressures within planets have no relationship to the explosions of stars. Stellar explosions are caused by a variety of conditions, for which we have a decent broad understanding.
    Yeah. We haven't know detail of Pluto yet.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    But science can find the answer for the scientific issue.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The temperature within a planet is a consequence of gravitational collapse, impact and radioactivity. The pressures within planets have no relationship to the explosions of stars. Stellar explosions are caused by a variety of conditions, for which we have a decent broad understanding.
    Yeah. We haven't know detail of Pluto yet.
    We know it is no different to any other dwarf planet in regard to these points. You seem to think it might be different. What evidence makes you think so?
     

  28. #27  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    When a planet doesn't have any sattelite, the planet will get high pressure.

    The high pressure will make high heating area inside of the planet. Heating area will expand itself. This is the reason for the explosion of a star.
    How long does this process take?
    If a planet doesn't have any moons/satellites, how long does it take before it explodes?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    When a planet doesn't have any sattelite, the planet will get high pressure.

    The high pressure will make high heating area inside of the planet. Heating area will expand itself. This is the reason for the explosion of a star.
    How long does this process take?
    If a planet doesn't have any moons/satellites, how long does it take before it explodes?
    I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis. Observation to the Space will confirm that the theory would be correct or wrong. It's the reason for being science itself. Many evidences suggest that an opinion will be correct or wrong. Indeed, we have many devices for observation. We need just a fact.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis. Observation to the Space will confirm that the theory would be correct or wrong. It's the reason for being science itself. Many evidences suggest that an opinion will be correct or wrong. Indeed, we have many devices for observation. We need just a fact.
    The fact is that you are mistaken.
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Whenever I see the title of this thread, it makes me think of the Taco Bell incident.
     

  32. #31  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis. Observation to the Space will confirm that the theory would be correct or wrong. It's the reason for being science itself. Many evidences suggest that an opinion will be correct or wrong. Indeed, we have many devices for observation. We need just a fact.
    Well, we've waited 4.5 billion years and neither Venus nor Mercury have exploded.
    How much longer do you think we should wait?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis. Observation to the Space will confirm that the theory would be correct or wrong. It's the reason for being science itself. Many evidences suggest that an opinion will be correct or wrong. Indeed, we have many devices for observation. We need just a fact.
    Well, we've waited 4.5 billion years and neither Venus nor Mercury have exploded.
    How much longer do you think we should wait?
    I described. Just on physical matter, you know. Don't ask me just your idea.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Interesting. My first thought was, but it was liquid. But then I remembered this: Tokaimura Criticality Accident which could have exploded.
    How could it have exploded? It's not that easy to make a fission bomb. It took the Manhattan project to do it.
    According to the article, they were using Uranium that had been enriched to 18%. 5% is normal. Even 3% is used sometimes.

    The major problem the Manhattan Project faced was just enriching the uranium. Once you've got enough of it, enriched to a high enough level, all you've basically got to do is lump it together and hit it with a hammer to set it off. If you have even more of it, it will simply set itself off.

    On the wiki page it kindly points out that 20% enrichment is enough for an inefficient bomb, and the required critical mass goes up if you drop below that level.

    Uranium-235 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    If we're still on the topic of a nuclear explosion occurring naturally in Earth's history, then it's good to point out that U-235 comprises 0.72% of naturally occurring Uranium, and has a half life of 703.8 million years. According to Google, Earth is 4.54 billion years old. That means that at some point in the Earth's history, the U-235 content could have been as high as 62.95%. Easily in range for a spontaneous nuclear explosion if enough of it came together.






    and

    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  35. #34  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis. Observation to the Space will confirm that the theory would be correct or wrong. It's the reason for being science itself. Many evidences suggest that an opinion will be correct or wrong. Indeed, we have many devices for observation. We need just a fact.
    Well, we've waited 4.5 billion years and neither Venus nor Mercury have exploded.
    How much longer do you think we should wait?
    I described. Just on physical matter, you know. Don't ask me just your idea.
    I am sorry, but I am unable to understand that reply. I think it got 'lost in translation'.

    How long does the process you described take?
    Is 4.5 billion years not long enough?

    If you said someone was going to die but after 4.5 billion years they still looked alive and healthy then I would not believe your claim.

    After 4.5 billion years, Venus and Mercury do not look even slightly like they are going to explode.
    This makes me think that it is not going to happen.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    [I can't ensure all things, just I wrote a hypothesis.
    If it is just a hypothesis then perhaps you should have expressed it with a little less certainty. And it is not even a hypothesis as it contradicts all known evidence and theory. A more accurate word might be "nonsense".
    Halliday likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If it is just a hypothesis then perhaps you should have expressed it with a little less certainty. And it is not even a hypothesis as it contradicts all known evidence and theory. A more accurate word might be "nonsense".
    I think I always write down "just my idea" when just my opinion. I know difference of value between common theory and my opinion. Many certain evidences(datas) are required when common theory will be changed.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post

    I am sorry, but I am unable to understand that reply. I think it got 'lost in translation'.

    How long does the process you described take?
    Is 4.5 billion years not long enough?

    If you said someone was going to die but after 4.5 billion years they still looked alive and healthy then I would not believe your claim.

    After 4.5 billion years, Venus and Mercury do not look even slightly like they are going to explode.
    This makes me think that it is not going to happen.
    I did wrote my opinion on a just planet, not on Venus and Mercury. But already Earth exploded once time for making Moon. I think it's common theory. On Venus and Mercury, maybe they wouldn't get the time to explode. Possibly by the gravity of Sun.
    Sure, 4.5 billion years are enough long. Maybe at 4.5 billion years later from now, people will say "we must think whether 9 billion years enough long or not."
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I did wrote my opinion on a just planet, not on Venus and Mercury. But already Earth exploded once time for making Moon. I think it's common theory.
    I understand it is your opinion, but it is wrong. I have tried to explain this to you. It seems I have not been successful.

    The Earth did not explode. The proto-Earth likely suffered an impact from a Mars sized body, some of which became embedded in the Earth, some of which was ejected into orbit around the Earth along with fragments of the proto-Earth. From these fragments the moon was formed.

    Your idea is not a common theory. It is not a theory at all. Venus and Mercury have not exploded because there is nothing that would make them explode.

    It is good to have an imagination, but it is better to allow facts to guide that imagination, rather than have the imagination make up 'facts'.
    PetTastic and RedPanda like this.
     

  40. #39  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I did wrote my opinion on a just planet, not on Venus and Mercury.
    If looking at real specific planets invalidates your claim, then your claim is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    But already Earth exploded once time for making Moon. I think it's common theory. On Venus and Mercury, maybe they wouldn't get the time to explode.
    So, Earth exploded very soon after it was created - but 4.5 billion years is not enough for Venus of Mercury to explode.
    That doesn't make sense, does it.

    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Possibly by the gravity of Sun.
    Firstly: the Earth is also affected by the Sun's gravity.
    And secondly: how would the pull of the Sun stop a planet from exploding?

    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Sure, 4.5 billion years are enough long.
    Then we both agree that your hypothesis is false.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post

    I am sorry, but I am unable to understand that reply. I think it got 'lost in translation'.

    How long does the process you described take?
    Is 4.5 billion years not long enough?

    If you said someone was going to die but after 4.5 billion years they still looked alive and healthy then I would not believe your claim.

    After 4.5 billion years, Venus and Mercury do not look even slightly like they are going to explode.
    This makes me think that it is not going to happen.
    I did wrote my opinion on a just planet, not on Venus and Mercury. But already Earth exploded once time for making Moon. I think it's common theory. On Venus and Mercury, maybe they wouldn't get the time to explode. Possibly by the gravity of Sun.
    Sure, 4.5 billion years are enough long. Maybe at 4.5 billion years later from now, people will say "we must think whether 9 billion years enough long or not."

    Besides that..... any explosion due to Uranium deposits would have to take place in the early days, when the concentration of U-235 was at it's highest.

    The U-235 will continue spontaneously decaying. In another 703.8 million years, instead of comprising 0.72% of mined uranium, it will be just 0.36%, and it will just keep getting lower and lower.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Possibly by the gravity of Sun.
    Firstly: the Earth is also affected by the Sun's gravity.
    And secondly: how would the pull of the Sun stop a planet from exploding?
    Firstly: The effect of gravity will be reduction by both of things getting far. Earth is getting far from Sun than Mercury and Venus, then power of pulling by gravity is reduced.
    Secondly: When press strongly a thing, the thing will get electricity and heating. It's found by physics. Then, when getting heating, a thing will expand. Earth is getting heating inside also. Do you think a planet can move without physics?
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning: Overthelight. This is a science forum. We welcome questions. We welcome people seeking knowledge. We welcome those who seek to educate others. We do not welcome those who persist in foolish ideas when the foolishness of their ideas is explained to them. You have been told that your ideas are faulty. you have been told why they are faulty. Repeating them as though they remained correct is not acceptable. This nonsense would have been closed down long ago on other forums. I suggest you show some discipline in your future posts.
     

  44. #43  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Secondly: When press strongly a thing, the thing will get electricity and heating.
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    Just pulling by the gravity of Sun. The planets get lower effect from gravity of Sun and getting heavy pressure, by far from Sun in the Solar System.
    -----
    It's not so complex by logical.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  46. #45  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    Just pulling by the gravity of Sun. The planets get lower effect from gravity of Sun and getting heavy pressure, by far from Sun in the Solar System.
    -----
    It's not so complex by logical.
    But how does the Sun's gravity compress the planets?
    "Just pulling" does not compress a planet - as I explained.
    All parts of a planet are pulled equally* by the Sun's gravity, towards the Sun.
    How does the Sun's gravity compress planets?

    * As I explained, there is a very small difference, but the difference would cause the planet to expand, not compress.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    Just pulling by the gravity of Sun. The planets get lower effect from gravity of Sun and getting heavy pressure, by far from Sun in the Solar System.
    -----
    It's not so complex by logical.
    But how does the Sun's gravity compress the planets?
    "Just pulling" does not compress a planet - as I explained.
    All parts of a planet are pulled equally* by the Sun's gravity.
    How does the Sun's gravity compress planets?

    * As I explained, there is a very small difference, but the difference would cause the planet to expand, not compress.
    I think I don't wrote Sun's gravity compress the planets. It's your opinion. How does the answer is expressed by evidence on you?
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  48. #47  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    I think I don't wrote Sun's gravity compress the planets. It's your opinion. How does the answer is expressed by evidence on you?
    'Press' and 'compress' mean similar things.

    So, what did you mean when you said:
    "When press strongly a thing" ?

    What do you mean by 'press'?
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity pushes (not pulls) planets towards itself?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Then what did you mean when you said:
    "When press strongly a thing" ?

    What do you mean by 'press'?
    The gravity a planet itself. Earth also has gravity itself. Please read a message well.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    *The gravity of a planet itself.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  51. #50  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Please read a message well.
    Your English is far from perfect.
    An element of guessing is required to read your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    The gravity of a planet itself.
    Mercury and Earth have similar gravities.
    But (according to you) Earth exploded soon after its creation.
    Why has Mercury not exploded 4.5 billion years later?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Please read a message well.
    Your English is far from perfect.
    An element of guessing is required to read your posts.
    I know. English is my second language. I'll proceed it like you want.

    [QUOTE=RedPanda;449524]
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    The gravity of a planet itself.
    Mercury and Earth have similar gravities.
    But (according to you) Earth exploded soon after its creation.
    Why has Mercury not exploded 4.5 billion years later?
    Then, Sun's gravity.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Overlight, what is your native language?
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Overlight, what is your native language?
    Well, I think I replied already enough answer for English speakers.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  55. #54  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Then, Sun's gravity.
    Then we are back to my previous post:
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    How does the Sun's gravity press planets?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Then, Sun's gravity.
    Then we are back to my previous post:
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Do you think that the Sun's gravity presses planets?
    How would it do that exactly?

    The gravitational pull on the Sun-side of a planet will be slightly (very slightly) greater than gravitational pull on the non-Sun-side of the planet.
    That would expand a planet, not compress it.
    How does the Sun's gravity press planets?
    I've already posted. Sun doesn't press all over the planet.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  57. #56  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda
    How does the Sun's gravity press planets?
    I've already posted. Sun doesn't press all over the planet.
    I didn't ask about what it doesn't do.
    I asked what it does do.

    How does the Sun's gravity press planets?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    On a mouse.
    Last edited by overthelight; August 11th, 2013 at 07:55 PM. Reason: by pressing a
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  59. #58  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    On a mouse.
    Pathetic.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    On a mouse.
    Pathetic.
    By a keyboard.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  61. #60  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    By a keyboard.
    I am glad to see that you no longer believe in all that shit you made up.
    Strange likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    By a keyboard.
    Despite being completely meaningless, this is the most coherent thing you have said in this thread (at least it is about something that exists).
    RedPanda likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Despite being completely meaningless, this is the most coherent thing you have said in this thread (at least it is about something that exists).
    Well, although I always feel I'm the alone one while I've posted.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Well, although I always feel I'm the alone one while I've posted.
    That is probably because you post meaningless and incorrect stuff that you have made up. Most people here prefer to discuss actual science.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman overthelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is probably because you post meaningless and incorrect stuff that you have made up. Most people here prefer to discuss actual science.
    Lifetime of a planet doesn't have completely structed theory. It doesn't reply for "Why" "When" questions. Not easy to accept completely physical rule by a star, I think.
    Science gives people the hope always.
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by overthelight View Post
    Lifetime of a planet doesn't have completely structed theory.
    What do you base that on? You haven't yet shown any problems with existing theories. Because you haven't mentioned any existing theories. (In fact, you haven't mentioned anything real - apart from "mouse" and "keyboard".)

    It doesn't reply for "Why" "When" questions.
    Science doesn't generally do well on "why" questions. As for when, what are you referring to?

    Not easy to accept completely physical rule by a star, I think.
    You have already demonstrated very clearly that your thoughts bear little or no relationship to anything in the real world.

    Are you suggesting that planets do not orbit stars?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  67. #66  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Comment: I issued a warning in post #42. Overthelight has chosen to ignore the warning, or else was unable to understand it. Their choice not to reveal their native language, which might have helped ease communication was rejected out of hand. I see no point in allowing this farce to proceed further. Thread closed.

    Overthelight, you remain welcome on the forum, but not if your posting style remains the same.
     

Similar Threads

  1. Distribution issue
    By john8 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 12th, 2012, 05:29 AM
  2. Formula issue
    By john8 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 24th, 2012, 01:46 PM
  3. New kind of explosive low-velocity round.
    By Pomegranate Cameron in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2011, 10:55 PM
  4. explosive energy
    By Arcane_Mathematician in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 24th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •