What-If 0012: "Raindrop"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

JJH
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:26 am UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

niky wrote:It's a very small singularity.

Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Max™ wrote:
niky wrote:Which begs the question, if you pour water on a singularity, would the intense heat, pressure and radiation electrolyze the water and make the components catch fire?

If you are close enough to a singularity to consider pouring water on it directly and it doesn't have an event horizon, things have already gone terribly wrong, and a fire is the least of your worries.
Indeed, though it is theorised that 5-dimensional black strings are able to violate cosmic censorship1

___________________________________
1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5960
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Red Hal wrote:
Max™ wrote:Question: "How many drops of water does it take to blow up the Earth?"

Spacebattles answer: "One, at sufficient velocity."
See my response to your almost identical post in the "everybody jump" thread for a debunking of that statement that is equally applicable to this instance.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Spacebattles

Nuke 'Em: One of Space Battle's catchphrases is the classic "Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Another is "One, at sufficient velocity," when asked 'how many of X does it take to beat Y?', referring to the tendency of anything to act like a nuke- or worse- if going sufficiently fast.

It's a joke, other examples include "how many ewoks to beat the death star? one, at sufficient velocity".
mu

Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Ah, so it isn't intended to be serious? In which case carry on (and on, and on ...)
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

niky
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:34 am UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

JJH wrote:
niky wrote:It's a very small singularity.

Are you suggesting there are big ones?

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

I mean, it is a *technically* true statement, it's just that "sufficient velocity" gets pretty damn ridiculous for small objects.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

gmalivuk wrote:I mean, it is a *technically* true statement, it's just that "sufficient velocity" gets pretty damn ridiculous for small objects.

Yeah, for the most part it's an amusing reference that notes a more plausible way to blow up a superfortress deathstation with a single light fighter is to get it within spitting distance of c and watch the fireworks.
mu

JJH
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:26 am UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

niky wrote:
JJH wrote:
niky wrote:It's a very small singularity.

Are you suggesting there are big ones?

I hope not, that would be wrong.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

gmalivuk wrote:I mean, it is a *technically* true statement, it's just that "sufficient velocity" gets pretty damn ridiculous for small objects.

How many photons does it take? Or neutrinos?

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Depends on how much energy each one has.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Pfhorrest
Posts: 5482
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Individual photons do have a maximum energy, don't they? As energy is proportional to frequency which is inversely proportional to wavelength which has a minimum (the Planck length). So there is a maximum damage that one photon, even moving at c (as always), can do.

I guess that doesn't apply to objects with rest mass though as you can always push them closer and closer to c and so give them more relativistic mass-energy.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-if 0012: Raindrop

Yeah, but the answer to the question of how many photons it takes still therefore depends on how much energy each one has, whether or not that energy has a maximum.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)