Page 1 of Theoretical question - discuss...

Ok. Lets say, in the year 1700, a meteor the size of Ireland is travelling towards earth at 0.5 miles an hour. Obviously there`s no way of halting it`s course, but observation of the object would be easy.

As the meteor approached the earth`s atmosphere (absolutely square on, no chance of it `bouncing`) would gravitational pull be enough to accelerate the meteor to a significant velocity to cause significant damage to the planet? or would it simply cause a hell of a dent in the ocean?

I only ask for 2 reasons. 1) I`ve a had a couple and 2), I found this artwork in my strolling around the WW...


and it inspired me to ask a `in the pub wiv ya mates` type question

============================
It`ll never heal if you don`t stop picking...


My Collection

This item was edited on Sunday, 29th January 2006, 01:42

Quote:
would gravitational pull be enough to accelerate the meteor to a significant velocity to cause significant damage to the planet?

And how. Even if an object the size of Ireland kept its velocity (rather than being accelerated to terminal velocity), its mass is the killer. Let`s put it this way. If it landed next to you, you`d certainly know about it. And I guarantee it`d sober you up. ;)

J Mark Oates

---

Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out
There`s A Humphrey About.

My Column Isn`t Dead, It`s In Hiding Here

This item was edited on Sunday, 29th January 2006, 02:43

Quote:
And I guarantee it`d sober you up.
Probably put the pub out of business as well. :o :(

Snaps

---

When we are born we are naked, wet, hungry, and we get smacked on our arse. From there on in, life gets worse

As far as acceleration due to gravitational pull is concerned, it`s mass doesn`t make any difference. Remember Galileo dropping two different sized stones off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they both hit the ground at the same time.

I suspect it would be many hundreds if not thousands of miles per hour.

There wouldn`t be anybody left to worry about the aftermath, that`s for sure. There may well not be any earth left to speak of as well.

And where is the dear old Moon in all of this speculation?

Quote:
As far as acceleration due to gravitational pull is concerned, it`s mass doesn`t make any difference.Sort of.... while gravity (g) is completely independant of mass, what really matters here is the `Gravitational constant` - G. This is the force that acts between all bodies directly depending on their mass. It`s how we know how `heavy` things like planets are and why planets, galaxies etc are moving..
So, it would hurtle to earth a bit sharpish and probably wipe out most of mankind...

Deep eh..

Ste

---

We will pay the price but we will not count the cost..

This item was edited on Sunday, 29th January 2006, 11:39

Is the year 1700 significant? Was there more gravity around then?..or perhaps just cleaner gravity, not having been affected by the industrial revolution.

My collection

completely random year, picked solely as they didn`t have stuff like nuclear weapons with which to blow the meteor apart, armageddon-stylee


============================
It`ll never heal if you don`t stop picking...


My Collection

If the meteor was the size of Ireland, I think 2006 would have been equally implausible to do anything about it!!

Point taken though, better to be on the safe side at 1700.

Quote:
completely random year, picked solely as they didn`t have stuff like nuclear weapons

Although Iran was working on it :D

julianf

never wear a seal hat to the zoo

---