Earth Destruction wrong Level

[CNBA3]

I just did the claculation for destroying Earth with the GBE, and it is 53.57 Zettatons, which would make it Small Planet level, I think this mistake should be changed.

 

[Antvasima]

If true, this would require us to adjust the lower border for planet level. As such, you should present your calculation here, and then ask our calc group members to take a look at it: VS Battles Staff

 

[CNBA3]

(3*6.67384e-11*5.972e+24^2)/(5*6.371e+6)=2.24160472815e+32 joules = 53.57 zettatons.

5.972e+24 = Earth's Mass kg

6.371e+6 = Earth Radius meters

I did the same thing for the moon and the results matched the one here, so the content should be corrected in the AP list.

 

[Crimson_Azoth]

I tested the formula myself, using the GBE for planets. It checks out. But yeah, definately ask the calc group to have a gander

 

[CNBA3]

I tested the formula myself, using the GBE for planets. It checks out. But yeah, definately ask the calc group to have a gander

Thanks, that is what I am doing now

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The problem with the main GBE calculator is that it often assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere; which is not. The one we have currently is actually scientifically accurate from what I heard DonTalk or Kepekley say.

 

[CNBA3]

The problem with the main GBE calculator is that it often assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere; which is not. The one we have currently is actually scientifically accurate from what I heard DonTalk or Kepekley say.

But that is the thing, I used the moon test out the GBE as well, where it does match the AP level with what it got

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The Moon is more spherical, so that's legit, the Earth is not actually a Sphere. It's more like an Oval with a steak through it.

 

[CNBA3]

The Moon is more spherical, so that's legit, the Earth is not actually a Sphere. It's more like an Oval with a steak through it.

Ok, then which method did Don'tTalk use for the result?

 

[Crimson_Azoth]

It's more like an Oval with a steak through it.

That's called an oblate spheroid, you heathen

 

[Qawsedf234]

Earth diameters. Moon is also uneven but by a far smaller amount

> The equatorial diameter of the Moon is 3,476.28 km. And the polar diameter of the Moon is 3,471.94 km

 

[Jobbo]

The value we have now is from Wikipedia.

 

[CNBA3]

I am not getting this, is there somewhere here the GBE équation that we currently use for uneven planets like Earth?

 

[CNBA3]

The value we have now is from Wikipedia.

I see that now on Wikipedia, but I am not sure how to accomplish this without knowing how to get the results

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It was discussed multiple times iirc, and forgot where the source was but perhaps DonTalk or someone would probably know or have it.

 

[CNBA3]

Does this has anything to do with the actual results?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams―Williamson_equatio

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Wikipedia actually does address the difference on the GBE page. It mentions the formula assuming Earth is a perfect sphere and that it's not correct but mentions the correct answer being 2.487 x 10^32 Joules or 59.44 Zettatons

 

[CNBA3]

Wikipedia actually does address the difference on the GBE page. It mentions the formula assuming Earth is a perfect sphere and that it's not correct but mentions the correct answer being 2.487 x 10^32 Joules or 59.44 Zettatons

I saw that as well, they mentioned something about Adam-Williamson equation, but not sure how to apply this

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

That's called an oblate spheroid, you heathen

I wish I knew that when my niece asked me what shape the Earth was. Then I could act even more pretentious in front of her.

Well, Earth has an Polar diameter of 12,712 km and Equatorial diameter of 12,756 km Dunno how the GBE formula would be adjusted with these different diameters, though.

 

[Crimson_Azoth]

And google tells me that every rocky planet in our solar system is the same way

 

[Qawsedf234]

GBE assumes a uniform sphere. Like a planet made purely from Uranium or something, with no altered density. The real results basically has to split the Earth into sections, assume mass, and go from their to my understanding.

So GBE gives a rough result of the true number by simplifying some stuff. So unless the source material gives like, a in-depth planet graph or uses a IRL planet there's not a easy way to get true energy.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It requires more energy to hold water and clouds together despite the shallower density.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I guess for like, future reference someone could find the "true" energy for destroying various planets in the solar system for future use.

But for now GBE is the best, or only choice I guess, for this type of thing. As a real result requires knowledge of the planet's layers and the density of said layers to work.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

GBE should still be the standard format; creating planets would still be that for sure at least. But destroying planets are usually much higher than 5-B since kinetic energy is a thing.

 

[Andytrenom]

That's called an oblate spheroid, you heathen

I wish I knew that when my niece asked me what shape the Earth was. Then I could act even more pretentious in front of her.

Well, Earth has an Polar diameter of 12,712 km and Equatorial diameter of 12,756 km Dunno how the GBE formula would be adjusted with these different diameters, though.

Isn't it called a geoid?

 

[CNBA3]

guess we will have to wait for DontTalk to chime in on this discussion.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

The difference in the calculation is so negligible it isn't funny. The difference between 12,712 and 12,756 is 0.345%. Not 3.45%, 0.345%. While planets aren't perfectly uniform spheres, unless you're wanting to calculate the GBE of a billiard ball you won't get a more accurate result without getting into derivatives, and no one wants to get into derivatives.

The current value we used is slightly better calculated than the raw GBE formula, but that formula meets the needs by all intents and purposes.

 

[Crimson_Azoth]

@Andy, both are correct. I just use oblate spheroid as it makes me sound more knowledgeable. No offense, but geoid just sounds like a made up word

 

[CNBA3]

The difference in the calculation is so negligible it isn't funny. The difference between 12,712 and 12,756 is 0.345%. Not 3.45%, 0.345%. While planets aren't perfectly uniform spheres, unless you're wanting to calculate the GBE of a billiard ball you won't get a more accurate result without getting into derivatives, and no one wants to get into derivatives.

The current value we used is slightly better calculated than the raw GBE formula, but that formula meets the needs by all intents and purposes.

I understand that, if the other calc is fine, then it's fine, I just want to know what that derivatives are to make better calcs in the future

 

[Assaltwaffle]

"The actual depth-dependence of density, inferred from seismic travel times (see Adams―Williamson equatio), is given in the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM).[4] Using this, the real gravitational binding energy of Earth can be calculated numerically as U = 2.487 x 10^32 J."

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

May want to change that to 10^32 instead of 1032; I know it doesn't translate well since the 32 should be raised. ^^

 

[Assaltwaffle]

For some reason my copy didn't get it. Added.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

So should we close this thread?

 

[CNBA3]

I would like to wait and see what the equation DontTalk said for the high end result for Earth's GBE

 

[Antoniofer]

Didn't we have this discussion before? The reason why the GBE is actually higher is due Earth not having a uniform density iirc.

 

[CNBA3]

Didn't we have this discussion before? The reason why the GBE is actually higher is due Earth not having a uniform density iirc.

I think we established this already, what I want to know is the actual equation is that gives the higher results.

I was trying to use the Adams-Williamson equation for that to see if I get the result

 

[Antoniofer]

Real equation most likely use an integral, but one more simple used some constant that vary depending of the type of celestial body.

 

[CNBA3]

Real equation most likely use an integral, but one more simple used some constant that vary depending of the type of celestial body.

if that is the proper equation then fine, but in this case it would be an earth like terrastrial body

would I have to put that somewhere in the equation?

 

[Antoniofer]

I think it was 1/(5 - c)*GBE, however, I do not remember the name or the values of the constant.

 

[CNBA3]

I think it was 1/(5 - c)*GBE, however, I do not remember the name or the values of the constant.

Then I guess we will have to wait for DontTalk to chime in on it, thanks