http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Calculator. http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/joules-to-megatons-conversion.html All that energy will be released on the earth in some form or another. Either as kinetic energy when it hits the ground, or heat in the atmosphere.
Sorry. I was wrong. I don't know why I can't read. I really really am sorry. I don't know how I messed up so badly. Let's pretend I'm not stupid as all hell, please? Please? Everyone? Let's just ignore my brain damage here.
I regularly make mistakes with simple mathematics. Like addition and subtraction. Really simple stuff too. You were doing massively complex math. There are people who still believe the Earth is flat because of math they did that seems to indicate that. You are no fool. And you admitted your mistakes. No need to beat yourself up over it. That is what we are here for after all. But to distract from that and appeal to the people who are reading this.... Quarks. Electrons. Neutrons. Fission. Fusion. Singularities. Space. Time. Matter. Energy. Relativity. Have fun. We lost the original topic long ago, so we may as well just start speaking our minds on whatever appeals to us for the moment.
I mostly mentioned the zero-point energy thing because we've got the whole singularity within the next few decades thing going on. At any rate, my personal favorite interstellar travel idea is the "plausible warp bubble" theory. As to the whole "great flood" thing IIRC a bunch of cultures from across the planet have similar flood myths, so it's entirely possible that a huge tsunami or something happened ten thousand years ago or whatever.
There was a big flood on the euphrates river in Iraq around 2900 BC(it floods most years, but this was apparently rather spectacular, overflowing the levies by 22 feet, according to archeologists). And there was a sumerian king who survived by commandering a big barge, who loaded it up with valuables, and road the floodwater until he got out in the persian gulf, where he ran aground, and thankful to be alive he offered a sacrifice in a hilltop temple. That's probably what turned into the noah story.
Which singularity? If you mean the computer technology version of singularity, then that won't help with zero-point energy, that's a very very complicated thing. I'm not saying it's not going to ever happen, but I would not bet on it for a long time. Maybe if we reach an actual technological singularity, it will help, but that's going to be a long time after you die of old age. Me? I'm going to live forever. The Plausible warp bubble theory is also my favorite too.
Alcubierre drive? It has some problems, not the least of which is the energy requirement, which in a matter equivalence may be larger than all the mass in the universe. You know you've got problems when the guys trying to find solutions... partially address it and tell you that small atoms may be transported at the energy cost of 'only' 3 solar masses. It may also not be possible to steer or control the ship because the crew wouldn't be able send signals to the front of the bubble. And the extremely high temperature due to hawkin radiation may destroy everything inside of the bubble.
The Alcubierre drive isn't what I'm talking about though. At least, I don't think it is. Oh, don't worry, it's -10 to the 64th power. That's what -1000000000000000000000000000000 kg? That's a lot less than the mass of the entire universe. Actually, that's a lot less mass than a quark. Seriously, someone needs to proofread wikipedia articles again. Guess what Omni's new job is!?
Yeah that is what you were talking about then, I recognize the wiki error. The only alternative that seems workable is the one that requires string theory... which isn't proven, and has really fallen out of favor because they've been claiming to be near a breakthrough for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
At a guess it's used as a dash in the sentence to point to the number, rather than a minus. Btw that's not a small amount of mass, that's an obscenely large amount of negative mass(this would actually be an even larger obstacle!). There's a distinction. (To be a very small amount of mass it would have to be stated as 1x10^-64).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation *Edit* Oh check this link too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix *Edit* I removed the quote. It is all in those links. And the text there looks right.
Yeah. I once bothered to find how to do the little numbers for proper notation, but the forums just nerf them into normal numbers. There is no way to quote it correctly. The links work and have the information in proper format. The forums hate scientific notations though...
