Is it possible to pass through a planet? (Many assumptions ahead)

[BlueCosmology]

I've finally figured it out. It actually is possible. While watching LittleBigPlanet, I was thinking about this for some reason. I constructed a calculator to help me with this, and the end result is scary.

Your velocity, would need to be equal to [approximations used] 3.328 x 10^68... Quintillion C! [three point three two eight, times ten to the sixty eight Quintillionth C]

That is a MASSIVE number. How big, exactly? Well... if you were to take every branch made within the entire multi-verse [assuming true, not saying it is], and convert it into one giant computer that can shoot virtual particles at a given velocity...

There would not be enough bits of data in the whole computer to comprehend what kind of speed this thing is moving at.

EDIT: If you wanted to know what would happen if you happened to be a large object moving at this unfathomable velocity...

If you were an average human size, and mass, you would produce so much energy in megajoules [exactly how much is beyond my capacity for paper], you could probably whip through the Earth, destroy it, and have enough left over to destroy every other planet in the observable universe. That... or if my theory of Verteron space is correct, you would leave a giant rift in space behind you that connects with it, eventually become the rift itself, and transport yourself to this theoretical space. Here, you basically have no physical limits anymore...

How did you arrive with that velocity, that energy and that "rift" ?

[Xannari Ferrows]

How did you arrive with that velocity, that energy and that "rift" ?

Wow, where do I even begin? Let's see here... Well, I start with a few simple calculations involving all sorts of fascinating stuff like pressure differential, atomic density, and field composition. Not the most fun things, but it gets even more boring where you're into minor, minor touches with particle physics. That can actually take a while...

Tossing relativistic effects aside for the sake of the purpose of the thread, we're onto basic physical reaction, atomic dispersal, ...

Do I have to explain each step in full detail? That'd take a ridiculous amount of time.

This "energy" is a scary thing. That much kinetic energy packed into a tiny spot of the universe, such as yourself, would most likely cause a gravitational singularity, altar space, bend it up, and allow you to enter a space you are not familiar with. Of course, that is theoretical and I am not stating it as fact, but all of my papers make a convincing argument.

[BlueCosmology]

Do I have to explain each step in full detail?

.

Yes.

[Ralathon]

Do I have to explain each step in full detail? That'd take a ridiculous amount of time.

You're in the "Science Labs", not the "Baseless Statements Lounge". If you want us to believe you we're going to need numbers, reasoning and preferably experimental verification.

[ZetaX]

We'll use Planck lengths for this thought experiment (ignoring the fact that it is not a quanta of space). The thought experiment here is that there is a physical, non-infinite energy requirement for an proton to travel 10 plank lengths in 10.5 plank times. However, because you can't fractionate the plank length, both the proton and a photon will have traveled the same physical distance. The thought experiment can be dragged even deeper. Pretend both a proton and a photon began their journey during the birth of the Universe. If the protons speed is slower than a photon by 1 plank length x the age of the universe plus one second, then up until now, it's kept pace with a photon - it's traveled at C, which is impossible, but will become possible in the future when it begins to lose the race.

Essentially we have a sublight particle that will lose a race against a photon, but hasn't yet because it hasn't had enough time to lose the race. The end result is that both the photon and proton have gone the same distance in the same time.

Quantisation (here) only means that it is not possible to measure the difference. That almost-c object was never moving at c to begin with, it may just be impossible to measure the difference (we still could measure it by the way: let it impact something huge and measure the released energy). At no time it was really moving at c.

[Technical Ben]

https://what-if.xkcd.com/20/

Best quote from that article "They seem to come from the general direction of exploding galaxies"... wait, galaxies explode?

[Sampa]

In Star Trek Online, apparently it is (in many warp out cut scenes, you see your starship warp through a planet)

[PB666]

Something which I heard in my learnings around astronomy : anything that moves with the speed of light (or faster, maybe ) is called a light.

So, imagine a light going to pass Earth.

Neutrinos, have mass (although noone knows were the mass comes from, I propose the Cannae drive - ) and can travel though a planet.

But my answer is . . . . . . . . . . . . .yes. If the planet has a solid rigid core, and you tunnel through the center to the other side, and the planet has no atmosphere, then it is possible to for ordinary matter to pass through the planet. Otherwise no. This would be the ultimate gravity assist because about 1/4 of the way from the center the gravity would peak.

[BlueCosmology]

Neutrinos, have mass (although noone knows were the mass comes from, I propose the Cannae drive - ) and can travel though a planet.

But my answer is . . . . . . . . . . . . .yes. If the planet has a solid rigid core, and you tunnel through the center to the other side, and the planet has no atmosphere, then it is possible to for ordinary matter to pass through the planet. Otherwise no. This would be the ultimate gravity assist because about 1/4 of the way from the center the gravity would peak.

What do you mean a 1/4 away from the center? Do you mean within the core?

[Talavar]

So, a question came up in my head today that I haven't been able to accurately answer, and is a pretty far-fetched question.

First of all, rules. On this topic, we will ignore the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit. We will also be ignoring things such as gravitational tidal effects and spaghetiffication.

Now, here's the question: If an object were travelling fast enough.. in fact, so fast, that the atoms don't even have time to recognize and react to one another, could passing through a solid body of matter be possible? I mean, it makes sense. The atoms in a body of matter never touch each other. They can get ever so close, but the repulsive forces of their own power and magnetic properties are enough to keep them apart. If you were to keep the atoms in one body of matter from reacting with the atoms in another body, theoretically they should be able to pass through each other without even interacting at all.

In fact, you could make a valid comparison by using a very old, fairly sparse theory. Compare this to a hyperbolic orbit while moving at plex-warp speeds, but not in our space. Say, you were to move the speed of light in Verteron space (A theory of my own suggestion that the space we live in is small, and we can gain access to a bigger space, effectively being able to move much greater distances without moving any faster. Still under development, and far beyond our capability to test it.)

Anyway, moving the speed of light here could move you vaster distances without compressing space, moving faster, but still interacting with our space.

If moving fast enough, indeed, can you pass through a planet?

Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I missing something? Keep in mind, we are not here to discuss why this wouldn't be possible. Just would it happen if it could.

Well, actually NOT ignoring the speed of light will get you through the planet safer... as an object gains velocity, it actually gains energetic mass, which makes it denser, and harder (so to speak) think of (if you have ever seen) the pictures of blades of grass, or straw stuck in a tree after a tornado.. we know that grass and straw is OBVIOUSLY weaker than a tree trunk, yet at high velocity, it doesn't matter. The tree gets punctured, while the straw stays intact. Now imagine you are traveling at the speed of light (or faster as you suggested) you would be so Energy heavy, that you could literally blow a hole right through the moon and come out the other side drinking a martini.. cheers! lol

[Xannari Ferrows]

Best quote from that article "They seem to come from the general direction of exploding galaxies"... wait, galaxies explode?

Perhaps they meant exploding, as in with light? I'm not sure what they mean by that either.

- - - Updated - - -

...you could literally blow a hole right through the moon and come out the other side drinking a martini.. cheers! lol

Oh darn it, now I want one! I need something to go along with my pizzas. Hey, you know a good recipe?

[BlueCosmology]

So are you not planning to give absolutely any indication where you plucked that random number from then?

[Bill Phil]

with some napkin math, you could approximate the multiple of C needed. Find the total length of the path through the planet in Planck Length. That's the distance you need to travel in one Planck Time. And so you get a multiple of C. this is probably very incorrect...

[BlueCosmology]

with some napkin math, you could approximate the multiple of C needed. Find the total length of the path through the planet in Planck Length. That's the distance you need to travel in one Planck Time. And so you get a multiple of C. this is probably very incorrect...

Clearly very very incorrect. Since Planck length and time do not have any physical significance, they are just a convenient unit system for particle physics. Some (read: very few) physicists believe they may slightly be around about the length and time that space and time are quantized. This is because they are arrived at by dimensional analysis which is purely a guessing tool that can tell you nothing other than something is wrong. This is a very unpopular view to actual theoretical physicists, for multiple reasons, that is very over exaggerated in popscience. For one there is no accepted upon theory of quantum gravity which is the realm at which space and time would be quantized if they are, and many popular quantum gravity theories do not even have space and time being quantized.

There's also no reason you'd just ignore relativity if you were going to go about this problem this way as well, you can pass any planet in any arbitrarily short time in your reference frame.

[Bill Phil]

Clearly very very incorrect. Since Planck length and time do not have any physical significance, they are just a convenient unit system for particle physics. Some (read: very few) physicists believe they may slightly be around about the length and time that space and time are quantized. This is because they are arrived at by dimensional analysis which is purely a guessing tool that can tell you nothing other than something is wrong. This is a very unpopular view to actual theoretical physicists, for multiple reasons, that is very over exaggerated in popscience. For one there is no accepted upon theory of quantum gravity which is the realm at which space and time would be quantized if they are, and many popular quantum gravity theories do not even have space and time being quantized.

There's also no reason you'd just ignore relativity if you were going to go about this problem this way as well, you can pass any planet in any arbitrarily short time in your reference frame.

Lightspeed is the speed that information is transferred throughout the universe. One Planck Length in One Planck Time is lightspeed in Planck Units. You then need to find out how to beat the information transferred when you collide with the planet. It would catch up to you if you don't go through the planet in one Planck Time. So you need to go through the planet in one Planck Time. Preferably more.

It's not ignoring relativity. I didn't say you could go faster than light, I didn't mention it. My statement was under the assumption that you CAN break lightspeed. You can't, but if you could...

Of course, I'm not a particle physicist. And would be perfectly fine with being wrong.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Xannari Ferrows]

So are you not planning to give absolutely any indication where you plucked that random number from then?

I cannot give an explanation to something I never gave.

Also, if you're going to join the majority in believing this nonsense mindset that has confused me since day 1, then you will never see my papers. Call out slander all you want, say 'You need to explain everything" all you want. I'm not even sure if this is true myself. Just a mathematical point. An idea, not fact. If I came out that way, I am sorry, I did not mean it.

Point is, a idea is a speculation. A rundown of the basics, giving little thought about it. Just write down the numbers and be done with it.

But until I can find something to contradict my current calculations, or you can somehow prove me wrong, procedure dictates I must stick with what I have right now. And so far, I haven't found anything.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Ralathon]

I cannot give an explanation to something I never gave.

Also, if you're going to join the majority in believing this nonsense mindset that has confused me since day 1, then you will never see my papers. Call out slander all you want, say 'You need to explain everything" all you want. I'm not even sure if this is true myself. Just a mathematical point. An idea, not fact. If I came out that way, I am sorry, I did not mean it.

Point is, a idea is a speculation. A rundown of the basics, giving little thought about it. Just write down the numbers and be done with it.

But until I can find something to contradict my current calculations, or you can somehow prove me wrong, procedure dictates I must stick with what I have right now. And so far, I haven't found anything.

This is nonsense reasoning. Ideas are a dime a dozen:

What if there are planets that speak english?

If you go 20 times the speed of sound and hit a bird, the bird will recite shakespeare but you can't hear it over the sonic boom.

Water has memory and it remembers all the dinosaurs that drank it.

If you have a rotating black hole that spins fast enough the event horizon will be donut shaped and if you fly through the center you will hit your own spaceship.

What matters is not the ideas, it is the reasoning behind those ideas and the evidence that supports them. If you have neither then it is completely pointless to discuss it. In much the same vein "Prove me wrong" is horrible reasoning. You go and try to prove me wrong on those 4 nonsense ideas I just posted, good luck with that.

If you want to convince us of your idea, give reasoning and evidence. You say you have numbers, show them!

If you just want a soapbox to shout random ideas into the world, a board dedicated to science is pretty much the worst possible place for it.

[Xannari Ferrows]

This is nonsense reasoning. Ideas are a dime a dozen:

What if there are planets that speak english?

If you go 20 times the speed of sound and hit a bird, the bird will recite shakespeare but you can't hear it over the sonic boom.

Water has memory and it remembers all the dinosaurs that drank it.

If you have a rotating black hole that spins fast enough the event horizon will be donut shaped and if you fly through the center you will hit your own spaceship.

What matters is not the ideas, it is the reasoning behind those ideas and the evidence that supports them. If you have neither then it is completely pointless to discuss it. In much the same vein "Prove me wrong" is horrible reasoning. You go and try to prove me wrong on those 4 nonsense ideas I just posted, good luck with that.

If you want to convince us of your idea, give reasoning and evidence. You say you have numbers, show them!

If you just want a soapbox to shout random ideas into the world, a board dedicated to science is pretty much the worst possible place for it.

...You do know the answer to your first question, right? These statements, as far-fetched as they may seem, ultimately cannot be proven wrong unless you can survive a plane crash, disprove what we know about water, and be able to enter a singularity. Why do you want me to disprove these anyway? It just helps my point...

Speculation: The formulation of a hypothesis, belief, or theory with little to no evidence.

How am I supposed to get evidence? All I have is the math, which according to your definitions, wont do anything without some reasoning behind them.

I am not trying to convince you of an idea. I never said anything along those lines. All I did was give an update on my progress. My first, mind you. All it is is a guess, quite frankly.

If I want to go out to a space center and shout some random crap about the stars being a giant computer, I will. That's what science is; proving yourself wrong. Speculations are the beginning of that.

[Ralathon]

...You do know the answer to your first question, right? These statements, as far-fetched as they may seem, ultimately cannot be proven wrong unless you can survive a plane crash, disprove what we know about water, and be able to enter a singularity. Why do you want me to disprove these anyway? It just helps my point...

Exactly, you can't prove them wrong. But that does not mean you have to believe them. If we had to believe everything everyone said just because "we can't prove you wrong" then we'd never get anywhere. There is literally an infinite number of ideas that we cannot prove wrong. So if we want to figure out how the world actually works we are going to need a bit more than "you can't prove me wrong". You need to provide evidence or logic to show how the world works:

Electrons get deflected in a magnetic field because this experiment shows it.

e^pi*i = -1 because this mathematical proof shows it.

Gravity decreases by the square of the distance because the orbits of the planets show that.

An idea without evidence is completely useless.

Speculation: The formulation of a hypothesis, belief, or theory with little to no evidence.

How am I supposed to get evidence?

Show how you arrived at your number. Tell us what theories you used as basis for your calculations. show your work. Speculation is step 1, and you shouldn't get numbers and conclusions from it.

All I have is the math, which according to your definitions, wont do anything without some reasoning behind them.

Math is reasoning. If your underlying theories are sound and your math shows how you get to your conclusions from those premises then I will believe you.

I am not trying to convince you of an idea. I never said anything along those lines. All I did was give an update on my progress. My first, mind you. All it is is a guess, quite frankly.

If I want to go out to a space center and shout some random crap about the stars being a giant computer, I will. That's what science is; proving yourself wrong. Speculations are the beginning of that.

Then why are you giving us conclusions like "Your velocity, would need to be equal to [approximations used] 3.328 x 10^68... Quintillion C! [three point three two eight, times ten to the sixty eight Quintillionth C]"? Did you just pull that number out of your ass or something?

[BlueCosmology]

...You do know the answer to your first question, right? These statements, as far-fetched as they may seem, ultimately cannot be proven wrong unless you can survive a plane crash, disprove what we know about water, and be able to enter a singularity. Why do you want me to disprove these anyway? It just helps my point...

That is not what proof means. You can never prove/disprove something with an experiment, you can only gather evidence for or against. Proof is a word used purely in mathematics.

Speculation: The formulation of a hypothesis, belief, or theory with little to no evidence.

A theory can NOT have little to no evidence. A physical theory requires a lot of evidence. Theory is pretty much the highest you can get in terms of evidence in physics.

I supposed to get evidence? All I have is the math, which according to your definitions, wont do anything without some reasoning behind them.

Ofcourse maths won't do anything without some reasoning behind them, because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as maths without reasoning. Maths IS reasoning

trying to convince you of an idea. I never said anything along those lines. All I did was give an update on my progress. My first, mind you. All it is is a guess, quite frankly.

Randomly picking a number and then giving a description full of completely meaningless words is not progress.

go out to a space center and shout some random crap about the stars being a giant computer, I will. That's what science is; proving yourself wrong. Speculations are the beginning of that.

The beginning of a physical theory or similar is the most simple speculation you can think of, and it's never a number. The start is a simple postulate, eg transformations should be linear. It is not a random number.

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot give an explanation to something I never gave.

Also, if you're going to join the majority in believing this nonsense mindset that has confused me since day 1,

What nonsense mindset? That a completely random number picked out the air is not how science works?

then you will never see my papers.

Please, we both know you don't have any 'papers' of interest. You're clearly a school kid that doesn't really understand what their talking about. I've seen your other posts (eg that complete nonsense proof of the area of a circle or your post on division by zero... Or this post.)

out slander all you want, say 'You need to explain everything" all you want.

In what world is asking someone to explain themselves slander?

I'm not even sure if this is true myself. Just a mathematical point. An idea, not fact. If I came out that way, I am sorry, I did not mean it.

A mathematical point is not just an idea, a mathematical point is a fact. A number is not a mathematical point.

Point is, a idea is a speculation. A rundown of the basics, giving little thought about it. Just write down the numbers and be done with it.

A conclusion is not the basics. Not to mention the basics are the part of a physical theory that require the most thought, not the least. Finding the right postulates is an incredibly important and thought requiring process. Again, random number is not an idea.

But until I can find something to contradict my current calculations, or you can somehow prove me wrong, procedure dictates I must stick with what I have right now. And so far, I haven't found anything.

Hahahaha, how am I meant to prove you wrong? All you've done is say a meaningless random number.

67242873. Prove me wrong.

Edited March 3, 2015 by BlueCosmology

[Xannari Ferrows]

@BlueCosmology and Ralathon.

There's no point in continuing this ridiculousness. You don't understand the slightest thing that's going on here. You will get no replies from here on out.

Say whatever you want from now on. I don't care. Have fun.

@Everyone else.

So, consoles? Any favorites?

[BlueCosmology]

@BlueCosmology and Ralathon.

There's no point in continuing this ridiculousness. You don't understand the slightest thing that's going on here. You will get no replies from here on out.

Say whatever you want from now on. I don't care. Have fun.

@Everyone else.

So, consoles? Any favorites?

Hahahahahhahaha, there's nothing to understand. All you've done is post a random number and pretend to know about science and maths.

[Technical Ben]

Perhaps they meant exploding, as in with light? I'm not sure what they mean by that either.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh darn it, now I want one! I need something to go along with my pizzas. Hey, you know a good recipe?

A quick read and they mean galaxies with lots of explosions, but this of cause is shortened to the phrase/common name "exploding galaxies".

PS, by "lots" we mean like, more than one. It's an amazing fact that we live in a universe with not too many and not too few supernovas (do the math for why that's important ).

[vger]

We're going to need the fire department in here to hose down these flames.

[Aanker]

Yes, you can have ideas and "hypotheses", but in the interest of discussion they must be verifiable/testable, which means we need access to your reasoning behind the assertions, not just the 'conclusions'.

I'm sure if we calculated our own numbers according to tried and tested formulae, we could compare them with yours and maybe see that your conclusion was wrong (or right?). But we wouldn't know why until you post your calculations.

This is a forum, the purpose of which I would presume to be constructive discussion, and that's not possible if all that we are getting are claims (the quintillion c thing), not arguments (like the entire calculation).