Comment on what really happened to the Titanic

• LurkingLuddite@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Sorry Marvin, but nuclear armament is a far cry from Earth shattering!

  source

  • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    but nuclear armament is a far cry from Earth shattering!

    You forgot about Project Sundial

    source

    • LurkingLuddite@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Ideas are not the same as possibilities.

      Also, the Earth takes hits bigger than that. Even the Tonga eruption was about 10 megatons of energy.

      The Chicxulub impact is estimated to be around 100 trillion tons of tnt equivalent. 10000x bigger than Sundial was even proposed.

      Chicxulub did not shatter the Earth.

      source

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Project Sundial wasn’t just theoretical. We had the ability, the materials, and the technical knowledge to build it. You know how you can absolutely verify that? We built it in thousands of different bombs rather than just one big one. If we had made a 10 gigaton device where it was supposed to be located in eastern California, or western Nevada, blowing that up would have created a massive crater that probably would have measured at least 30 miles in diameter, and all of the US would die in the first blast. The shockwave would circle the globe multiple dozens of times. This is a world ending bomb. Half the planet’s crust would be molten for decades if not centuries. 10 gigatons is about 1/4-1/5 the amount of energy that Theia imparted to Proto-Earth which created two moons for a very short period of time, and made the entire planet molten for another 1/4 billion years.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Project Sundial was 10 gigatons, so, 10,000 Tongas.

        I’m t was enough to ignite all of metropolitan FRANCE if detonated at an altitude of 45km.

        The earth would survive, sure, but I’m pretty sure there would be significant global effects.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That was a fusion device though

      source
  • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You’re not thinking big enough. ;)

    source

    • LurkingLuddite@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Nah, there’s literally not enough nukes or even fissile material to make an Earth-shattering bomb. It takes a lot of energy to shatter something the size of Earth.

      source

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        If you blow it up on the surface or in the atmosphere, sure. Blow up a 10 gigaton device, which we absolutely can make and have the materials to do so, buried as deep as you can possibly get it, so about 1.5-1.6 miles in the crust, and you’re gonna wreck a significant portion of a hemisphere.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Not enough fissile material on earth. With enough asteroid and planetary mining, and … ah never mind. You are probably still right. "Shattering means breaking apart and defeating earth’s gravity well.

        We’ll have to get started on antimatter bombs for the required energy density, I guess.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Chakravanti@monero.town ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Maybe it was in a Vegetable Glycerin reference.

      source
• Napster153@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The reactor didn’t have a pointy tip so it bounced off the ground.

  source