/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 852 KB, 1680x1050, remiq.net_4644.jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:12:43 2012 No.4255825 [Reply] [Original]

Your goal, /sci/, should you choose to accept it, is to eradicate all life on Earth.

Nothing can survive. Not on the ground, or underneath it, or in the sky or in the sea. Not one microbe.

You have at your disposal all human resources and technology, as well as any theoretical technology that could be feasibly produced at this stage in our history (feel free to argue about what this entails).

How do you do it?

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:17:14 2012 No.4255839

Does bacteria count? Are we talking abruptly or over a matter of months/years/decades?

Personally i think there should be a way to cause a chain reaction with the gases in the atmosphere causing it to burn up, which would in turn cause the earth to overheat and basically turn into a new mars. That's it just off the top of my head, im sure its possible to flood the earth with enough radiation to cause life to cease to exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:18:22 2012 No.4255842 Destroy the moon. It's rubble will either do the job, or the subsequent crash into the sun will kill us. >/thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:20:38 2012 No.4255846 File: 54 KB, 473x488, 1318281157196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4255842 >if the moon is destroyed, Earth will crash into the sun

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:20:47 2012 No.4255851 >>4255842 >>4255842 >assuming we dont want the earth in tact afterwards, he said eradicate life on earth, not earth itself. That would cause the tides to rise, i dont see it killing all the aquatic life though.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:21:47 2012 No.4255852

>>4255839

You still have a normal human lifespan, so anything you set into place must be accomplished in that time frame. However, what you set into place will be allowed to run its course without interferrence (from humans, at least), so your solution can work across milenia if it has to.

>inb4 "wait for the sun to go supernova"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:25:10 2012 No.4255858 >>4255852 Well if you found a way to slowly alter the course of the moon further and further from earth, even by a little more then a few inches per year, the water levels on earth will rise and probably start a new ice age.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:25:19 2012 No.4255860 File: 6 KB, 270x270, 27537_142172979128247_8599_n-270x270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP is an alien looking for tips, don't help him!

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:26:26 2012 No.4255861

That would be... difficult to say the least.

Even if you spent a thousand years stockpiling nuclear weapons and then completely sterilized the entire land surface area of the planet (a tall order - you would probably need several megatons per square kilometer), you wouldn't have even started to touch life in the oceans. Dumping massive quantities of nerve agents into the oceans could conceivably kill all animals, but would leave behind all of the plant and microbe life. Even massive quantities of radioactive isotopes being dumped into the oceans wouldn't do the trick - water is an extremely good shielding material, so it would be virtually impossible to irradiate all life in the oceans (plus, I doubt you could accumulate enough radioisotopes in the first place).

The basic problem is that bacteria and archaea can be *extremely* hardy: some can live off nothing but minerals in water that is close to boiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-reducing_bacteria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus).). You would somehow have to simultaneously make both the oceans and the surface of the earth inhospitable to any life, which would probably mean having to heat up the entire planet to temperatures well above boiling. Cooling the planet to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero wouldn't necessarily *kill* everything on the planet, since spores might be able to reactivate after thawing. The easiest way might be to somehow induce massive runaway greenhouse heating, such as what happened on Venus.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:27:26 2012 No.4255863

>>4255858

Even if this destroyed all macroscopic life (it wouldn't), you're vastly underestimating how resilient microbial life is. There's microbes that live kilometers deep in the Earth's crush and survive off of geothermal heat and don't give one ounce of fuck what happens on the surface.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:28:34 2012 No.4255866 Why don't we just continue using fossil fuels at the same rate we currently are?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:29:42 2012 No.4255867 >>4255861 The entire thing is doubly stymied by the fact that life isn't only hardy, it's way fucking adaptable. Anything you do has to happen FAST. I think the only sure way is to incinerate the entire planet by moving it into the sun somehow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:29:42 2012 No.4255868 >>4255863 i hadent thought that deep, just throwing out the first idea that comes to my head. think im going to have to go with my original "find a way to cause the atmosphere to burn up" >>4255839

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:31:58 2012 No.4255873 An impossible task at our current technological stage. Grey goo might be the only thing capable of it anyway, besides complete destruction of the Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:34:15 2012 No.4255877

>>4255863
I don't think there are any microbes that live kilometers below the surface of the earth, are there? There are definitely many living at the bottom of the oceans 10 km below the surface... which are nearly as hard to kill, of course.

One huge problem is that you can't kill everything with poison: the only real universal "poison" is radiation (or something very acidic / basic, which you can't probably get enough of anyways), and some bacteria and archaea are probably very resistant to radiation.

Actually... how does this strategy sound? Spend ten thousand years:
1) Stockpiling nuclear weapons
2) Stockpiling some chemical to drastically change the pH of the ocean to something completely inhospitable to life (don't know what would be the easiest to mine that would achieve this goal, plus I'm not sure if you could even theoretically mine enough material to achieve this goal).

The nuclear weapons could sterilize the entire land surface area (I'm talking massive yields: at the very least 1 megaton per square kilometer, probably much more), and you could alter the pH of the oceans with whatever chemical(s) you managed to create.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:34:22 2012 No.4255878 >>4255873 It will be a long time before we have self replicating nanobots, unless, ya know, we all become borg, or builder a bender.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:36:31 2012 No.4255884 >>4255877 amount of chemicals needed to alter the ph of the ocean would have to be massive, like a lake full of acid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:39:54 2012 No.4255888 >>4255884 Well, I'm talking about strip mining hundreds of thousands (millions?) of square kilometers to accomplish this goal - I doubt anything less would even start to be enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:39:54 2012 No.4255889 shoot nuclear bomb into the ground (center of earth) every square KM, this will get the job done. Earth will split into uncountable pieces, goodbye

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:41:10 2012 No.4255896 >>4255889 I think were trying to keep the earth in one piece here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:44:27 2012 No.4255901 >>4255889 No it won't - nuclear weapons aren't that powerful. Look, even a 1 megaton nuclear weapon only has a fireball with a radius of 500m.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:46:43 2012 No.4255905 Op is really just an evil mastermind. Way to help him out /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:47:51 2012 No.4255909 put a nuke inside every volcano.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:50:14 2012 No.4255917 Nuke Russia from the United States. WWIII breaks out, eradicating all life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:51:14 2012 No.4255921 >>4255889 Even if we split the Earth into millions of little asteroids, there would still be microbes that survive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:52:22 2012 No.4255923 destroy the sun?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:53:31 2012 No.4255926 >>4255825 Use a gravity tractor to drag the earth into the sunn. Should only take about 1000 years.

Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 21:53:38 2012 No.4255928

That would be incredibly hard concerning there is life in earths crust miles down and close to the mantel in the deep ocean at vents as well. You would need to destroy earth by hurling it into the Sun and make sure no extremophiles escape the atmosphere(hitch hiking a ride into deep space to seed new life). Life is very persistent.

Perhaps diverting the earths orbit purposely towards the sun with large asteroids. I'm sure someone smarter could elaborate on how to do that.

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 21:55:46 2012 No.4255932 >>4255917 There is life that can survive the radiation happily if not the blast itself, also you gotta deal with the stuff living in the undergrowth as well.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:56:55 2012 No.4255937

>>4255905
It didn't really help him though - nobody's come up with a plausible way to completely sterilize earth yet.

Also, I did some quick calculations, and I realized the earth is ridiculously difficult to destroy. It takes <span class="math"> 10^13 [/spoiler] MEGATONS of TNT equivalent energy to heat the world's oceans by 80 degrees, i.e. more or less to the boiling point. There's not way we could possibly make enough nuclear weapons to achieve even that....

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:57:02 2012 No.4255939 >>4255923 Destroying the sun is even more ridiculously impossible than destroying all life on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:57:02 2012 No.4255941 >>4255937 Sorry, <span class="math"> 10^{13} [/spoiler] megatons of TNT equivalent

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:57:02 2012 No.4255943 >>4255937 I bet you're also assuming that all the energy from the nukes goes into the ocean, right? Which of course would be far from the case.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:59:10 2012 No.4255945 >>4255943 Well, I'm pretty sure at the very least 50% would go into the oceans if you blew them all up at the bottom of the ocean. I mean, by the time you're talking about 10^13 megatons, who cares about a factor of two? :P

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 21:59:19 2012 No.4255948 >>4255926 >>4255928 Hive-evil-mind.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:03:43 2012 No.4255957

>>4255928
O.o Uhhhhh, NO.

Do you have any idea what kind of momentum the earth has?? Also, unless you're diverting asteroids that are rotating around the sun in the opposite direction (not too many of those), it would probably be more efficient to directly thrust the earth.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:03:50 2012 No.4255960

Runaway global warming is about the only currently feasable method, in my opinion. There are many current examples of extremophile organisms who survive in acidic waters, incredibly high temperature waters, in caves underground with no sunlight, hell, theres even organisms on the planet who can survive in the vacuum of space. Even discounting these organisms, the sheer volume and variety of life on the earth is so absurd that about the only method of erradicating it completely is to further build up our co2 emissions, and release chemicals in order to destroy the ozone in the atmosphere. The only other method feasible may be to accelerate the moon using the solar radiation / massive engines / atomic detonations, and use the moon as a gravatational tether in order to alter the earths orbit around the sun until it's close enough that the atmosphere is lost to space, ala mars. This would of course also cause superheating, plus eventually massive exposure to radiation once the atmosphere and oceans are gone. Inb4 life on mars.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:04:50 2012 No.4255962

>>4255945
Well, if you can get bombs that can survive the pressure, releasing all the ocean floor methane might kill the oceans, which would turn the atmosphere into a greenhouse with CO2, turning earth into a runaway-greenhouse planet with an atmosphere of raining acid.

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:05:59 2012 No.4255963 >>4255957 Destroy the moon then? It was a wild guess. Tho I doubt that would be very feasible either at our current state of technology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:05:59 2012 No.4255965 >>4255960 >>4255962 EVIL-HIVEMIND!

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:07:14 2012 No.4255970 >>4255962 What a horrific image of destruction.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:08:22 2012 No.4255972

>>4255960
Oh, using the moon as a gravitational tether is a great idea, since there's not atmosphere on the moon to screw up your thrusters. You'd probably only have to change earth's orbit to something like Venus, and then you might get (if you're lucky) some real runaway heating.

>>4255962
You're going to need something on the order of 10^13 megatons to heat up the deep waters of the oceans enough to release that methane (ok, maybe a few orders of magnitude less, but still a ludicrous amount)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:11:38 2012 No.4255979 File: 331 KB, 564x760, teletubby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4255970 Horriffic? I think you mean intoxicating.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:11:46 2012 No.4255982

Actually... how about crashing the moon into the earth by slowly thrusting the moon over decades/centuries? You'd probably release enough gravitational potential energy to melt the crust of the earth. Of course, I guess that begs the question of "how the heck did you get enough energy to slow the moon down in the first place." Actually, I guess that if you had access to enough energy to slow down the moon and get it to crash into the earth, that energy would be enough to directly vaporize the oceans / melt the earth's crust anyways...

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:12:46 2012 No.4255984 >>4255979 You're a evil evil man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:13:54 2012 No.4255985 >>4255982 Gravity tractors. But getting enough of them of sufficient quality to move the damn moon is a tall order.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:14:02 2012 No.4255990 >>4255962 I'm not sure event this would do the trick. Dem extremophiles, man. I would be 100% unsurprised if sometime in the future we hear about microbial life that lives on Mars, Mercury, or even Venus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:15:11 2012 No.4255996 Hate, greed, selfishness, envy, lust.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:16:18 2012 No.4256000 >>4255996 > We're talking about exterminating all life, NOT just humans

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:19:42 2012 No.4256006 File: 21 KB, 320x286, joker simple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's simple, we uh, kill. The batman.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:23:06 2012 No.4256013

>>4255825
>no time limit
>no set conditions for the Earth after complete extinction

I would wait several billion years OP.

If environmental disaster, nor asteroid, nor planetary collision manages to leave this planet devoid of life we can always rely on the Sun to come gobble us up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:24:14 2012 No.4256015 >>4256006 Goody two-shoe. Nobody likes a nice madman.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:27:31 2012 No.4256024

assuming resources also includes time:

I would wait for the next massive asteroid to come near the Earth, then launch a nuclear device at it. When it detonates within close proximity of the asteroid, the asteroid breaks apart sending a massive chunk towards the earth. If the calculations are correct and the chunk is big enough, it could literally break the earth in half.

Congratulations, no more earth.

Assuming waiting that long isn't as option, a combination of radioactive salted bombs (like a cobalt bomb) and biological weaponry would be the best thing I can think of. Detonate salted bombs all over the world in order to send as much radioactive cobalt isotopes across the planet. Then, while everyone is in a panic and struggling to survive, you release bioweapons in every major country. I still don't think this would be able to kill ALL life, but it's the best I can come up with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:28:38 2012 No.4256025 >>4256013 see >>4255852 We're trying to come up with positive action we can take to hasten the end of life on Earth. Just waiting is for pussies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:29:46 2012 No.4256027 >>4255990 I would be very surprised about life on Venus - you'd have to have a completely different chemistry from the water-based life we have on earth to survive in a 500 C carbon dioxide environment (at pressures of 92 earth atmospheres...)

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:30:54 2012 No.4256030

>>4256024

The problem is that merely destroying the Earth does not guarantee the destruction of all life. Sure, there won't be any space elephants, but there will be plenty of microbial organisms that survive.

Hell, even some animals would survive out in space just fine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

>Tardigrades can survive the vacuum of open space and solar radiation combined for at least 10 days.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:31:03 2012 No.4256036

>>4256030

also

>In September 2007, tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission and for 10 days were exposed to the vacuum of space. After being rehydrated back on Earth, over 68% of the subjects protected from high-energy UV radiation survived and many of these produced viable embryos, and a handful had survived full exposure to solar radiation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:33:19 2012 No.4256039 >>4256030 Then change the universal constant for Higgs aeither and pop(well, flatten) the universe.

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:34:26 2012 No.4256040

>>4256025
How's this then:

I sticky this thread on /sci/.

If humans are ruled out from interfering with doomsday devices/scenarios, but not from putting them in place, then at some point /sci/ will come up with a suitable scenario and someone will put it into action.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:35:34 2012 No.4256042 >>4256039 If you've got a way to actually do it, I'm all ears. But as far as I know, we haven't even proved that the Higgs aether exists.

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:36:43 2012 No.4256043 File: 42 KB, 481x358, 1324201196236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4256040 >mfw The FBI will be closely monitoring this thread from then on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:37:51 2012 No.4256048 >>4256042 Someone has been away from /sci/ for a month...

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:38:51 2012 No.4256050

Ok, here's a simple solution: (somehow) dump enough energy into the earth to completely vaporize the oceans, expel the earth's atmosphere, and completely melt the earth's crust to a depth of several kilometers. That should completely sterilize the earth, even those pesky extremophiles and Tardigrades :)

All we need to do is:
a) Accelerate a large body in the solar system (e.g. Mercury or one of Saturn's moons might make for a handy weapon) onto a trajectory that causes it to collide with the earth. You could do this over a period of many centuries with massive thrusters, mass drivers powered by the sun, nuclear explosions (ok, this is probably too whimpy), etc. As long as you give this non-earth body an elliptical orbit, the collision between the earth and our "bowling ball" should be violent enough to achiever our goal. For example, look at how our moon was created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

b) Come up with an efficient way to generate antimatter, build up a massive stockpile over a couple thousand years, and then set it all off at the same time :)

Ok, so I guess option a), plus maybe the more boring runaway-greenhouse gas suggestions are the only semi-realistic solutions...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:40:06 2012 No.4256060 >>4256030 Yeah, I mostly meant all macro life. The OP said all microbiotic life as well, but I think that's impossible unless you go exterminate every single speck of it one by one.

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:42:22 2012 No.4256063 >>4256060 Feed me happy pills and the tools. I'd do it. Then I'd sit down with a nuke, eat my last meal then blow the shit out of my self too. Determination comes from reward.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:47:54 2012 No.4256076 >>4256063 >determination comes from reward You are a robot.

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:50:19 2012 No.4256089 >>4256076 I can be one when I need to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:51:19 2012 No.4256091 >>4256024 >Using Bio weapons to extinguish life on Earth Fucking genius

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:51:26 2012 No.4256093

>>4256091
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 22:54:50 2012 No.4256103 >>4256089 What I'm trying to say is, you're a faggot. (jus kidding <3)

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 22:56:59 2012 No.4256113 File: 42 KB, 700x500, 1324184251219.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4256103

Anonymous Sat Jan 14 23:08:26 2012 No.4256156

Make contact with aliens, and send them access to 4chan along with a CD on how to speak english. They will immediately come to the conclusion that all the life on planet Earth needs to be exterminated and open up an artificial black hole right next to us.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 23:11:42 2012 No.4256165 File: 143 KB, 650x308, gunbuster01.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4256156 That would probably look something like this.

Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sat Jan 14 23:14:06 2012 No.4256176

>>4256156
Hah, yeah except what if they really like what they see? Will they try and emulate us by starting a 4chan on their planet or ours. Or maybe they already have some sort of similar webpage on their internet. The universe would be one messed up and fun place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 14 23:21:54 2012 No.4256196 >>4256176 They invaded and already lost. They disguised themselves as a shipment of large dildos at an all gay size-queen convention and were all smothered to death in a particularly exuberant discussion panel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:00:42 2012 No.4256565 Is it just me, or is everyone in this thread thinking wayyyy too hard? All you have to do is get earth away from the sun. All life will end.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:04:06 2012 No.4256574 >>4256565 The trick is to do it today on a budget.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:09:38 2012 No.4256585

>>4256565
Getting earth away from the sun requires about the same energy as (or possibly more than) simply:
1) Moving the earth closer to the sun and frying it a-la Venus.
2) Changing the trajectory of a small planet (such as Titan or one of Saturn's moons) and crashing it into the earth, which will probably send large chunks of the earth flying into space, and leave the remainder molten.

And come on, which is more fun? :)

Also, freezing the surface of the earth might not necessarily exterminate all life. For example, some bacteria can live off of the sulfur compounds emitted from underwater volcanic vents...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:11:55 2012 No.4256592 >>4256585 I meant to write: "(such as MARS or one of Saturn's moons)"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:22:14 2012 No.4256610 The only thing I can think of to completely get rid of all life involves actually destroying the Earth, and to make sure no microbes survive in space, I think sending it into the Sun is one of the only possible ways (if there are any other)

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:25:31 2012 No.4256615

>>4256585
The sea would freeze and the water would crystallize, puncturing their membranes, effectively killing them. But still, I hadn't thought of bringing the earth closer to the sun is probably more economical than moving it away.

I think maybe altering the course of a relatively large asteroid to smack earth when it is closest to the sun, and doing this several times might do the trick.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:35:42 2012 No.4256630 Feasibly, the only way to do this is to remove the atmosphere or to knock the Earth out of orbit beats me

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:35:42 2012 No.4256631 CO2 acid rain atmosphere with clouds of raining hydrogen fluorine and a temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit at 84 atmospheres of pressure? You underestimate the power of an out-of-control greenhouse environment.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:39:06 2012 No.4256638 >>4256631 That might not even kill all humans on this planet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:41:30 2012 No.4256641 >>4256638 LOL! You're cute and optimistic. >implying a basement and not bathing will save you from a dense, hot and acidic atmosphere.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:47:10 2012 No.4256655
File: 262 KB, 1280x720, 1306956989534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

this won't be achievable in a lifetime but would be in a pretty short period of time
what if we work as one and build lots of rocket fire them
and bring all the nearby small asteroids onto such a orbit that would cause the earth to get out of the habitable zone in the solar system

the best case scenario would be that it would collide with the sun after let say 10 000-100 000 years

this way we would be sure that everything is dead

but on the other hand some microorganisms may end up in space because of the rockets fired from earth
and cause life somewhere else.... this would be like a failure

but i can't think of other way to kill everything
even if we explode all the nuclear weapons in the atmosphere
the creatures on the bottom of the ocean would survive
and even if we somehow darken the atmosphere so that no light is reaching us
there are underwater vulcanos which won't allow all the water to freeze and some microbes would probably thrive there

>>	Ataraxia !p3ukEUfrWM Sun Jan 15 02:48:10 2012 No.4256657 >>4256631 I get indigestion just thinking about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:49:27 2012 No.4256662 >>4256631 sounds like venus

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:49:27 2012 No.4256663

>>4256641
We don't even have enough fluorine on this planet to achieve what you described. The temperature of the atmosphere would cause ocean water to boil, forming many clouds, which block off the sun from supplying more heat. As to how you're going to make the atmospheric pressure that great, without the gas all escaping the atmosphere completely baffles me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:53:51 2012 No.4256666 >>4256655 Everything you said is why an out of control greenhouse environment would work SO much better. Those microbes might have silicon components(big deal), which will split and evaporate with the carbon and water.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:54:58 2012 No.4256668

nanobots that self replicate
and use organic cells as fuel
but still there is a small chance that some cells may evolve in such a way to deceive the simple nanobots

unless the nanobots were smart enough which would need to be at least as smart as humans which is a no go

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 02:54:58 2012 No.4256672 >>4256663 More than enough is diffused through the oceans.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:00:38 2012 No.4256680

Build a series of nuclear reactors along the coastlines of every continent that vent nuclear waste into the oceans.

The heavy waste will sink to the bottom, spreading lethal radiation all the way down, killing the entire food chain over several decades to centuries.

With the seas dead and rapidly becoming radioactive, all coastal life will also die. If radiation carries in rain, then continental life is fucked. If not, then the radiation will eventually build up from the oceans and contaminate the land as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:01:47 2012 No.4256681 >>4256672 You're missing the point. I'm just telling the fool who thinks /sci/ is full of basement dwellers that he's retarded no matter which board he posts on.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:02:54 2012 No.4256682

>>4256663
>As to how you're going to make the atmospheric pressure that great,

That's the great thing. It seriously wouldn't take a lot of effort. Anything that affects the deep ocean currents would be enough to start the reaction, then the raising of the temperature, the evaporation of the oceans, the thermal separation of hydrogen and oxygen, the burning atmosphere of evaporated carbon and oxygen, etc... etc... etc...

Glorious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:05:19 2012 No.4256687 >>4256682 >start the reaction, killing all life in the oceans and the oxygen they produce, then the raising Woops, left a "step #3: ????" between steps thar

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:08:34 2012 No.4256691 >>4256682 >Raising the temperature of the ocean >the ocean >Evaporation of the ocean >the OCEAN >thermal separation of hydrogen and oxygen >Burning of the atmosphere ... I hope you're trolling.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:15:23 2012 No.4256700 >>4256691 With an atmosphere that's getting hotter and hotter, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:17:38 2012 No.4256701 >>4256691 With an atmosphere that's getting hotter and hotter, oceans start to evaporate and contribute to the rising temperature. I don't need to troll you. You do it to yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:18:46 2012 No.4256703 >>4256700 the atmosphere will expand into space and water vapor will block sunlight so there will be more like a freezing effect

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:20:02 2012 No.4256706 >>4255878 Why can't we build nanobots? You have all earth's resources and an entire lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:20:02 2012 No.4256707 >>4256703 Then Venus would have no atmosphere.

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:31:22 2012 No.4256720

>>4256707
venus doesn't have water vapor to reflect sunlight
venus has a lot of CO2 which absorbs light and turns it into heat
CO2 is a lot heavier than N2 or O2
that's the reason it doesn't expand

maybe there was a lot of oxygen but got blown away by the solar wind

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:41:26 2012 No.4256734 Use an Orion-style rocket to steer a reasonable size asteroid into the Earth. It will take some time to modify the orbit, but it can be done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:43:51 2012 No.4256737 >>4256720 With enough greenhouse atmosphere pressure AND heat, you could have an atmosphere that decomposes water at a low enough temperature to evaporate just the hydrogen off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 03:45:58 2012 No.4256740 >>4256737 >THERMALLY decomposes wups, sorry

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]