+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Destruction of Earth (/showthread.php?tid=42351)
Destruction of Earth - bluntpencil2001 - 06-30-2010
Here's a good answer:
It doesn't matter.
Destruction of Earth - rayne - 09-14-2010
' Wrote:Destruction of Earth did happen. Most of Sirius is not aware of this however. The light from the explosion will reach Sirius in some time from now. It hasn't yet.
Sirius is only 8 light years from Earth, if the Earth was destroyed 800 years ago the light would have been seen ages ago.
Destruction of Earth - kersch_wasser - 09-15-2010
destruction could just as easily be the entire surface being scorched...
you cant just say that a tiny little star like the sun has enough mass to go super nova when it doesnt....
the nomad suepr wep that nuked sol...no matter which way youput it..could not have infact carried something with enough mass to ad to the sun to cause it to BE ABLE TO go nova...cause otherwise the nomad wep wouldve collapsed in on itself due to it`s own gravity
so THE ONLY thing that the sun couldve doen at all...is been blown to big messy bits...with large portions of still active star matter floating around the former heliosphere of sol
so yourl ooking at alot of scorched cinders of planets...but not ones scratched from existence..im sorry people but thats how it is
its abit like rayne said...the light shouldve been here by now...so the whole "sol is blown up" hypothesis has been shot down and needs re investigating
(in the case of macroscopic black holes dab..those exist in the physical universe les time then it takes to blink..and THAT IS the typical size of a black hole,especially since CERN was booted up)
Destruction of Earth - Dab - 09-15-2010
' Wrote:you cant just say that a tiny little star like the sun has enough mass to go super nova when it doesnt....You should research how large the typical black hole is..
Destruction of Earth - kersch_wasser - 09-15-2010
seriously dab...i wouldnt suggest trying to argue physics with someone that doesnt have a life...thats abit like mosquito larvae v.s piranhas
Destruction of Earth - Dab - 09-15-2010
Should I argue about comparisons of an insect to a fish instead..?
' Wrote:(in the case of macroscopic black holes dab..those exist in the physical universe les time then it takes to blink..and THAT IS the typical size of a black hole,especially since CERN was booted up)BTW, there is a massive black hole in the middle of our galaxy.. Our galaxy is very very old. A 'massive' black hole is smaller than our planet.. It's massive size is in relation to an ordinary one.. Which is very small.
Destruction of Earth - kersch_wasser - 09-15-2010
im talking about mass you dweeb..i am warning you dab dont get me started...
anyone from grade school up should know what a singularity is...trying to infer otherwise is only bringing shame dude
gravitational pull...you just keep on talking about size in the physical universe as with all black holes? very very small..infinitely small...mass is the measure of the effect of it`s gravitational pull on nearby heavenly bodys...
cause technically black hoels cant be measured in physical size due to the fact of being infinitely small..and breaking down the laws of physics by there very nature...so in english grammar i can use notions of big or small in the terms of gravitational pull when referring to black holes
dont cross brains with me dab...youll leave with brain cancer
Destruction of Earth - Dab - 09-15-2010
' Wrote:gravitational pull...you just keep on talking about size in the physical universe as with all black holes? very very small..infinitely small...mass is the measure of the effect of it`s gravitational pull on nearby heavenly bodys...
So you're finally agreeing that size =/= mass?
So we can safely assume that
' Wrote:you cant just say that a tiny little star like the sun has enough mass to go super nova when it doesnt....
tiny/large has no relation to its mass?
Oh, and telling me that you're infinitely smart doesn't mean that you are. Nor does it mean that I'll be scared to debate with you.. Saying you're smart and so people shouldn't argue with you is like saying the size of a star dictates its mass.
Destruction of Earth - Shagohad - 09-15-2010
Ironically, the bigger a black hole is is dictated by the less space it occupies. The smaller the space a black hole occupies, the more massive its gravity well is.
Destruction of Earth - kersch_wasser - 09-15-2010
again you fail dab
the reactionary mass of a star does determien the gravitational mass of its resulting black hole..or the afore mentioned star`s ability to go supernova
go back to grade school physics babe..ill be your teacher
gravitational mass..id different than irl mass
"cause technically black hoels cant be measured in physical size due to the fact of being infinitely small..and breaking down the laws of physics by there very nature...so in english grammar i can use notions of big or small in the terms of gravitational pull when referring to black holes"
serious dab..they ought to suspend you from college