Reputation
231
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
4 13
Impact
~14k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 13 votes cast
Mar
27
accepted Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
Mar
21
awarded  Notable Question
Mar
21
comment Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
@Luaan please note (and for posterity) that when I mention aero-braking I'm not referring to the asteroid's approach to Earth being slowed. I'm referring to the slowing of the asteroid being the reason it touches down (imagine Earth's passing speed being high enough that the asteroid is almost able to be passed by the earth, but the asteroid is sort of dragged along (relatively slowed) by the atmosphere to cause it to slowly collide with Earth). So, imagine the same conditions, but without an atmosphere, resulting in the asteroid coming very close to Earth but then whipping past it.
Mar
21
awarded  Nice Question
Mar
21
awarded  Popular Question
Mar
21
awarded  Yearling
Mar
21
comment Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
@kpv haha +1 thanks
Mar
21
comment Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
Thanks. So, the inverse squared law of gravitation my slow-motion asteroid fantasy into trouble pretty quickly :(
Mar
21
comment Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
@dmckee well, since a 500 meters wide asteroid moving at 11kms would probably be an extinction level event, and since I mentioned things like "50kmh" and "barely touches down", probably not. Would you mind explaining why you think something like this is impossible?
Mar
21
asked Could an asteroid land slowly on Earth's surface?
Sep
28
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
8
awarded  Notable Question
Aug
28
awarded  Critic
Aug
28
accepted Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
Aug
28
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
I have a hard time accepting this. It would seem that black holes couldn't move, if it were also the case that matter entering them at a vector has no effect on their position or inertia. I believe that black holes are not in fact as small as they're currently believed to be. P.S. Thanks for the discussion. I just realized it's nearly 1am and I have to work early in the morning. Cheers and have a good night.
Aug
28
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
How could the Big Bang have ever happened. If the universe was a singularity just before the Big Bang, it would have necessarily been the most massive black hole possible. Could it be possible that space is created when matter expands, rather than matter expanding into space? If this were the case, wouldn't that also imply that a new universe could come from any given black hole, perhaps in a different dimension (re: "disconnected from the universe"?
Aug
28
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
That is to say, a black hole doesn't follow the rules of physics? I don't see why there is any reason that 2 equally massive (homogenous and symmetrical for simplicity's sake) objects shouldn't carry their momentum right through each other, like any other object would.
Aug
28
comment Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
Would this also happen, if two planets free-fell into each other?
Aug
28
asked Could the Big Bang have simply been two black holes hitting each other at 99% of the speed of light?
Apr
14
awarded  Notable Question