/sci/entists, I have a question

>>8979772
>how much damage would result
93 imperial hectoarcfurlongs

>>8979776

Hmm, let me rephrase that, how much force do you think each tungsten rod would exert on the planet?

>>8979772
495166.746 kg at .8c seems like a world ender

>>8979772
1.4241077673784267e+22 joules.
one ton of tnt is 4.184e+9 joules so an incredibly devestating impact

>>8979772
to expand on>>8979806
the projectile would probably vaporize when it comes into contact with the atmosphere but would release enough energy to catch anything in line of sight on fire up to and including steel

>>8979791

You think so? Would the sphere still be relatively intact, would it be broken into pieces, or would there be nothing left but dust?

>>8979806
>>8979812

Damn, wasn't Nagasaki only 84 terajoules?

>>8979772
Improbable that you could accelerate massive tungsten rods to those speeds in any conceivable environment. Such a weapon could never exist.

>>8979826
near relativistic weapons are a physical possibility just not so with our current tech

>>8979823
nagasaki was 54-75 terajoules
this would be 14241077673.784 terajoules to put that into comparison all nuclear weapons ever tested combined is only 2,135,000 terajoules

>>8979823
It'd be sploded anon

>>8979836

...Damn, that's what, 6,670 times as much force? Hmm, there'd probably be a few large chunks left, but there'd be zero chance of recovering the biosphere. Or the shape of the planet in general, I suppose.

>>8979840

I guess so.

>>8979853
yeah id imagine you wouldnt see numbers like that unless you were talking about colliding planets

>>8979772

Nothing would be left but ashes.

>>8979806
>>8979866
That's 10 times smaller than the Chixculub impact, which isn't even close to the largest in history. It's not unprecedented.

File: rodfromgodsgod.png (573KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1920x1080px

>>8981271
im not sure about that. Were talking continent wide blast radius and thats not taking into account any ejected material.

>>8981282
I doubt that calculator is accurate with numbers that large

>>8981282
and before anybody points out that it wouldnt be an "explosion" like a nuke but I feel that the nuke map is a decent stand in for the scale were talking about. To get any closer we would have to run simulations that are far above my pay grade.>>8981285
your right but its, as I said, as close as I can get unless someone has a supercomputer standing around.

>>8979772
Why Tungsten anyway?

>>8981443
high melting point and relative accessibility compared to osmium. I wouldve gone with with a carbide myself