/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6186767]

/sci/, how would I go about destroying the sun?

[Anonymous No.6186775]

>>6186767
Installing gentoo.

[Anonymous No.6186779]

throw a jupiter in it

[Anonymous No.6186785]

>>6186767
take -1000 C ice sun and collide them

[Anonymous No.6186795]

>>6186785
> - 1000 C
liberal arts or engineering fag detected

[Anonymous No.6186800]

>>6186795
lol no.
engineers invented thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.6186807]

>>6186795
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.6186808]

>>6186795
>Implying engineers don't know their thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.6186814]

>>6186807

Absolute zero exceeds -1000 c. History major and even I know that shit.

[Anonymous No.6186822]

>>6186814
>implying that you can't go under that
>implying that god wouldn't be able to go beneath absolute zero (whose powers you must have if you wanna make a ice sun)
>being this dick

[Anonymous No.6186837]

>>6186767
Why would you destroy the sun? Destroying the earth seems simpler to me. Still hard as fuck, though.

[Anonymous No.6186841]

>>6186837
Because I am an edgy motherfucker

[Anonymous No.6186847]

>>6186814

Are you so retarded that you can't sniff out an obvious joke? Do you seriously think that people on the science board doesn't know of the absolute minimum? Did it not tip you off that no one else reacted like you did?

[Anonymous No.6186855]

>>6186841
>Study the Sun for your whole life
>Find out all about the chemical reactions that occur
>Designate a chain reaction that would fuck the whole sun up, throw the shit needed for the reaction to start into the sun.

[Anonymous No.6186853]

>>6186767

Hit it with something larger than the Sun.

[Anonymous No.6186870]

>>6186855
> chemical reactions
> inside the sun
more liberal arts fags detected

[Anonymous No.6186871]

>>6186837
Why would you destroy the earth? Getting the earth out of orbit seems simpler to me. You just have to put lots of rockets aimed towards the ground and fire them at necessary times.

[Anonymous No.6186881]

>>6186870
ur mom

[Anonymous No.6186882]

>>6186871

based earth 2150

[Anonymous No.6186943]

speaking of sun, can a binary star sustain earth like (habitable) planet?

[Anonymous No.6186975]

>>6186881
i love you /sci/

[Anonymous No.6186998]

>>6186943
There have been planets found orbiting binary systems. Whether any any have been determined habitable by our standards I'm not sure.

>>6186767
Just get a few earth masses and bring them close to the star to be accreted onto the sun, it will become massive and go supernova.

[Anonymous No.6187007]

>>6186814
We sub-absolutezero now

>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/
2013/01/below-absolute-zero/

[Anonymous No.6187011]

Pour 1,000,000-tons of cold water on it.

[Anonymous No.6187019]

>>6187011
more like 10↑↑↑↑10 septillion gallons of water

[Anonymous No.6187022]

reptilian?? GARRAW RA HAHA

[Anonymous No.6187025]

>>6187011
would make it hotter

[Anonymous No.6187030]

just construct a delivery device that can make it to the center with a yield of a couple octillion megatons and detonate. easy.

[Anonymous No.6187041]

>>6186767

Give Malcolm Mcdowell a call.

[Anonymous No.6187044]

>>6187041

WTF...? I didn't post that pic...

[Anonymous No.6187048]

>>6187041
getting him close to sun is the problem

ps very enjoyable manga for those curious

[Anonymous No.6187091]

>>6186767
stop the fusion process and it should collapse in itself.

[Anonymous No.6187136]

>>6186943

astrophysicist here

This is actually a somewhat deep question. I'm somewhat impressed. Anyway, the binary star system with a planet is an example of the three-body problem, which is a classical mechanics problem that is analytically difficult. Tidal forces become a large issue. I would need to find the correct paper, but as long as the combined luminosity of the stars is enough such that the habitable zone extends far from the stars, then the orbit could be metastable for a few billion years.

>>6186998

They have been found. Habitability is a difficult criterion to verify.

Also a few earth masses are not enough. The minimum mass for a supernova (Type Ia) is 1.38 M_sun, and that is for a white dwarf, which the sun is not. The sun is a main sequence yellow dwarf. You would need several solar masses of hydrogen, and then you would just shift its evolutionary sequence. Even with 100 solar masses, it would take at least 10^3 to 10^4 years to get the correct chemical abundances in the core for the star to go supernova.

>>6187091

not possible. Gravitational collapse would eventually ignite fusion, unless you replaced all of the solar material with iron. That is also impossible, since you would have to literally deconstruct (read: explode) the star and then manipulate the gases directly.

Also general interest - check the latest xkcd what-if. Its on supernovae

[Anonymous No.6187158]

Throw iron into it, lots of iron.

[Anonymous No.6187200]

>>6186814
Well apparently some history majors lack social intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6187213]

>>6187136

How do you suggest we destroy a star like the sun? Wouldn't [>>6187030] be the most convenient way

I assume if something like that was detonated at the center it would do enough damage to the sun to cause it to stop its normal functioning

[Anonymous No.6187252]

>>6187213

The method of [>>6187030] is likely the best bet; essentially you have to blow a star apart to destroy it.

A star is actually not very complicated, at least in origin. It's just gravitational collapse. All the fusion and structure emerge exactly from the physics of the material. They are, as a rule, incredibly stable for naturally occurring furnaces. Suppose you find a naturally occurring chemical/nuclear reaction; intuition says that it should be easy to disrupt it, take out a part of it and stop it from functioning. Stars aren't like that; they are resilient, since they achieve confinement using the most basic shit imaginable, self gravitation. Nothing really stops gravity except dispersing the stuff so much that it isn't strong enough to initiate collapse again.

People like to shit on gravity for being so weak compared to electromagnetism, but weakness simply sets scale. And the scale needed to disrupt gravity - immense. Stars are pretty massive. That's a lot of inertia - enough to last billions of years.

[Anonymous No.6187312]

>>6186871
That wouldn't fucking work unless if the exhaust went out of the atmosphere.

I know you're probably kidding but I'm gonna be a dick anyway.

Your analogy is like saying a bottle full of bees is going to fly because they're pushing on the bottle, or some kid is able to move a shopping cart that he's sitting in.

It just doesn't fucking work man.

[Anonymous No.6187329]

>>6187312

not true... you could move the shopping cart if you had a rocket.

dp/dt = m dv/dt + v dm/dt

lrn 2 rocket m8

[Anonymous No.6187334]

>>6187329
Wh-What the fuck does that have to do ANYTHING with what I said besides the two key words, "rocket" and "Shopping cart"

lrn 2 read m8

[Anonymous No.6187362]

>>6187334

lol nope.

It has everything to do with it. It doesn't matter if the rocket exhaust goes out of the atmosphere, all that matters is that it transfers momentum... that is, pushes the Earth. You seem to think that you have to have gas exit the atmosphere for you to move the earth, which is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6187397]

>>6187362

>what are internal forces
you seem to think that rocket exhaust doesnt also push on the atmosphere in your situation, and that the atmosphere is somehow not gravitationally bound to the earth.

an analogy is this: if you fart inside your spacesuit, do you change your momentum?

[Anonymous No.6187401]

>>6187362

You are retarded. It's OK to harbor misconceptions, but to be so adamant about them is another

[Anonymous No.6187414]

>>6187397

Nice try. Atmosphere is fluid, not a ceiling. In an enclosed space, a rocket would push on the rigid surfaces *roughly* equally, but an atmosphere is not the same. The air will not push back; it will slow the stream of gases and dissipate turbulently, but the momentum will not transfer back to the earth, and the net effect of the rocket will occur. Analogy: jets don't fly by pushing on the air, they fly by throwing a lot of shit behind them really fast. Even in air.

[Anonymous No.6187418]

>>6187401

you are an idiot. I'd say the same to you

[Anonymous No.6187422]

>>6187418

Promise me this, when you realize how fucking wrong you are, take a long hard look at yourself and how you make yourself look like a gigantic idiot every time you open your mouth

[Anonymous No.6187423]

>>6187414
you are forgetting that the transferred momentum to the earth requires that the earth then drags the exhaust along as well.

thermodynamics tells us the energy of dragging the atmosphere will cancel the energy of gained momentum.

ergo, the earth will not move.

[Anonymous No.6187428]

>>6187423
sorry meant conservation of energy/momentum. but whatever. its an internal system, you cant get net displacement from it, ever. that is physics 101, kid.

[Anonymous No.6187439]

>>6187428
another analogy is twisting your body in zero-G. you can cause a rocking motion, but you cant complete a full rotation (i think actually you cant even turn 180) and you can never change the position of your center of mass.

in the earth setup, with big enough rockets, you might move the earth, but it will move back as it 'recaptures' the exhaust. the center of mass of the system will not change.

[Anonymous No.6187441]

>>6187422

lol

Why would I care if I look like a fucking idiot? All I care about is getting it right... and if you are right then I don't care. Half of learning physics is opening your big stupid fat mouth and guessing, and then applying harsh criticism to what you said.

Anyway, you seem to think that the rocket will simply do nothing, and all the jet and air moved by the jet will simply fall back down to earth and transfer the momentum back... but think about that for a second. Can you explain to me how the momentum transferred by the rocket is canceled by such a process? Or do I misunderstand your reasoning?

The rigid jar wouldn't work, since a jet of air will impact the back of the jar, and the impulse will exactly cancel the impulse of the rocket, since they are directly connected by a rigid body. Gravitational bounds do not work this way.

Add in the significant thermal/dissipative effects - the jet in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere, and loses energy (and momentum) to the air around it. The turbulent effects would transfer energy and momentum even more quickly due to convective effects. In short: the atmosphere is not rigidly attached to the Earth, and it is not a collisionless gas.

[Anonymous No.6187445]

>>6187441
>still thinks something needs to be rigidly attached to transfer energy

you need to step your game up a bit and starting thinking about gravity, my boy

[Anonymous No.6187446]

>>6187441

I really think you're underestimating the required energy to blow a significant portion of the earths atmosphere to orbital velocity. If you had that much energy you would destroy the earth anyways which was the point of the OP. As long as no matter reaches escape velocity there is no change in momentum to the center of gravity. of the orbiting system either.

[Anonymous No.6187452]

>>6187428

Rockets change this system, my friend. You have added energy to the system from an external source (the rocket). This energy is added to the system - and thus work can be done.

Rocket forces are not conservative. That theorem depends on conservative forces. They are not important - its the dissipative, nonconservative forces which are important.

>>6187439

Agreed, you cannot change your center of mass... but that was never the question. We were trying to move the Earth. Once the gas is exhausted, we don't particularly regard it as important. The true closed "system" includes this gas, but we don't care about it anymore, and while the COM of the "system" will not change, the COM of the Earth - exhaust gas will. You forget that raising the temperature of the atmosphere will increase atmospheric losses, and there will be outgassing from the Earth.

[Anonymous No.6187459]

>>6187452
>Rockets change this system, my friend. You have added energy to the system from an external source (the rocket). This energy is added to the system - and thus work can be done.
>
>Rocket forces are not conservative. That theorem depends on conservative forces. They are not important - its the dissipative, nonconservative forces which are important.
my first post itt but what the actual fuck?

[Anonymous No.6187461]

>>6187446

Not necessarily true. You don't have to blow a significant amount of atmosphere to move it. Move it significantly, yes. Actually achieving a reasonable velocity is very hard, and would need a very large rocket.

[Anonymous No.6187464]

>>6187452
What the fuck dude. If the exhaust does not have escape velocity, its internal. Also, rocket exhaust acts in the gravitational field of the earth, which IS conservative.

As for your second paragraph:
>rising to my bait
If you move the earth any significant amount, its because the exhaust left the atmosphere. The atmosphere is incredibly thin compared to the earth, so any major displacement of the earth would be equal to the displacement of the exhaust.

So by your own caveat, no, you cannot move the earth if the rockets exhaust doesnt leave the atmosphere. Not even temporarily.

[Anonymous No.6187468]

>>6187452
losing this hard and fighting on as oblivious as ever. I admire your courage, anon, if not your wisdom.

[Anonymous No.6187471]

>>6187464

Conceded

I realized my arguments relied on exhausting the atmosphere

Apologies. But I stand by what I said, I don't particularly care if I looked like an idiot... the physical question is what matters

[Anonymous No.6187473]

>>6187471
I accept your concession, and appreciate your ability to do so. It was an interesting argument and I must admit, I did have to think a few minutes before I found I knew the answer. You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

May the force be with you, always.

[Anonymous No.6187479]

>>6187473

thanks anon

despite years of university training one can always be an idiot.

In any event, sometimes the best physical insight is found by clinging to an idea and fighting as hard as you can to prove it true, only to be proven wrong on all counts. There are several examples.

Being wrong isn't bad, its being "not even wrong" that's bad...

[Anonymous No.6187485]

>>6187479
No biggy.

One thing i find useful is this: nothing is actually 'rigidly' attached to anything. Its all force exchanges.

[Anonymous No.6187489]

A large antimatter explosion that creates a gravity well.

Boom, headshot.

[Anonymous No.6187516]

>>6186767
Sniper rifle.

[Anonymous No.6187566]

>>6186767
Siphon matter out of it, using it to construct more siphonning machines which...

Should be quick enough.

[Anonymous No.6187612]

Throw a stargate with an active wormhole to a black hole into it.

[Anonymous No.6187620]

Shoot a concentrated lazer-beam at it. Gamma rays.

[Anonymous No.6187624]

my recipe, just add iron to the core

[Anonymous No.6188172]

>>6187473

Are you fucking serious

[Anonymous No.6188175]

>>6187624

Stars dont collapse because they have iron in the core, they get iron in the core because they have run out of fusible material.

[Anonymous No.6188197]

>>6186870

NO YOU

Liberal arts as an insult?
Who makes all the art, movies, music etc. that makes your panties wet?

"hurr durr arts major"

Thats 9fag worthy. Honestly

>inb4 arts major detected

I study Int Rel

[Anonymous No.6188201]

>>6188175
Exactly, if you pump them with loads of iron then they no longer have material they can fuse and thus are starved of food.

[Anonymous No.6188208]

>>6188201
What about the material they were using before?

[Anonymous No.6188212]

>>6188197
might as well study being unemployed faggot

[Anonymous No.6188232]

>>6188172
>upset about a polite and courteous conclusion to an online discussion

/b/ is back thattaway, retard.
<---

[Anonymous No.6188266]

>>6188201

You're not removing any fuel, just adding iron.

[Anonymous No.6188267]

>>6187471

I take it you're not gonna do as >>6187422 asked then?

[Anonymous No.6189602]

send 1000 U.S Marines and it will be done

[Anonymous No.6189678]

>>6189602

Assuming you tell the muhreens they're on a mission to rescue the sun

[Anonymous No.6189725]

>>6186795

[Anonymous No.6189728]

>>6189725
Exactly.

[Ruby !!iPJbBu5S79g No.6189792]

>>6188197

>Art, movies, music, etc...

Graphic design and the like are not liberal arts degrees, they are fine arts degrees. All the people that make the art, movies, music, etc... that make people's panties wet? Those are fine arts majors.... or college dropouts.... or people who never went to college because they were too busy perfecting their craft. Liberal arts are the classics, like philosophy, history, or literature.

[Anonymous No.6189903]

>>6186779
Actually -like most gas giants- Jupiter is some sort of failed sun.

[Anonymous No.6189984]

>>6188212

That was harsh. I study Int Rel too T_T

[Anonymous No.6190006]

Shoot a rocket filled with SPF 10000000+ sunscreen.

[Anonymous No.6190014]

Throw a sun-sized snowball to it.

[Anonymous No.6190066]

put it in a giant freezer

[skathi No.6190075]

well, take away its helium and hyrdrogen. boom. its gone. or fast forward a few million years and it'll rather implode into a black hole or explode into a nebula. or, put a black hole in its vacinity, so the black hole sucks up all its mass. just saying. :I

[Anonymous No.6190104]

>>6186767
Sun is hot during the day, remember to attack at night

[Anonymous No.6190105]

>>6190075
Yes, waiting has proven to be the most effective method of destroying more or less any celestial object. Or any object at all.

Viva la heat death!

[Anonymous No.6190122]

>>6186800

> Implying Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Boltzmann and Carnot were engineers and not physicists.

[Anonymous No.6190128]

>>6186998

> Just get a few earth masses and bring them close to the star to be accreted onto the sun, it will become massive and go supernova.

Do you even realize how massive a star has to be to go supernova? Do you even realize that stars much more massive than the sun do not go supernova until they run out of "fuel"?