-3
$\begingroup$

The question is rather simple, which of the 2 option requires more energy?

Destroying a planet comeplety or splitting a planet in directly in half

Would appreciate it if you show your calculation too

Edit: by destroy i mean by destroying it in 1 blast where there's only space dust left. Also by split i mean splitting the earth into 2 and overcoming the gravitational pull

Edit 2: again by split i mean when you split a planet in half where it won't fused back together but would be permanently be in 2 pieces

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Commented Dec 5, 2017 at 6:10

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Splitting the planet is easy. But destroying one...

There is a great write up here on all your earth destruction needs

https://qntm.org/destroy

Here is the basic idea. It is very hard to "destroy" a planet. The idea of destroying it is making small enough pieces separate gravitationally from each other. In the example of splitting it in half, a planet would not stat like that for long. Gravity would pull the parts back together, and soon enough in geological terms you will again have a sphere. This is how the planet came together in the first place.

To sum up the link, to truly destroy the planet you would need a huge amount of antimatter, 100% of the planet's mass if you want nothing left. CLose to that if you don't want the debris sooner or later reforming into a planet

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .