Armageddon? Fail Safe in the 17 year works - HIT or MISS - Page 2 - Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums

Svarog · 29th September 2002, 08:11 AM

Well obviously the tidal waves would be weaker than ones closer to the sea. Depending on how strong the quake is that causes the waves, how far the waves have to go and how much the waves have to spread out.

The strength of the wave would depend on the power of the trigger, in this case the quake caused by the meteor. If it hit Africa then the waves going towards india would have less space to diffract into, therefore each meter of wave would be more powerful. The waves going to America would have a nice wide open America to diffract into so each meter of wave that hits the coast would do less damage, spreading it out. The wave would destroy more of the coast but in terms of human lives it would do less damage at each major city it hits since power that would have hit the city in a small sea would be diverted to elsewhere along the coast, where hopefully it would only destroy a low populated area. So overall in terms of human lives it would make a difference.

PTeppic · 30th September 2002, 06:24 AM

So in theory then, the best place would be in the centre of a large land-mass, the maximum distance from ANY ocean?

Svarog · 30th September 2002, 06:43 AM

I don't want to turn into an all-knowing Lysdexia (no offense buddy), so i'm gonna say it again, i'm not seismologist/ armageddon expert so i don't know.

I'm guessing the best place to hit is the moon where noone gets hurt. Perhaps if it hit just north of Antartica so it doesn't melt the ice caps but is far-away enough from any populated land masses. But either way the resulting dust cloud would kill us all anyway. That's what happened to the dinosaurs

shazstar · 30th September 2002, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Svarog

Quote:

Perhaps if it hit just north of Antartica so it doesn't melt the ice caps but is far-away enough from any populated land masses. But either way the resulting dust cloud would kill us all anyway. That's what happened to the dinosaurs

If the asteroid hit in a polar region, depending on impact velocity and angle trajectory are we are still possibly looking at orbital fluctuation? Is it possible for a big enough asteroid to cause orbital 'wobbles' and cause an imbalance in natural occuring phenomena, resulting in global environmental disruptions, such as Volcanic activity, earthquakes, haywire weather, storms, tidal activity and iniating another ice age? I can remember (ages ago) reading an excerpt from a scientific journel where this was theorised as the cause for dinosaur extinction and the following ice ages.

Svarog · 30th September 2002, 08:40 AM

Not if another asteroid were to hit the exact opposite side of the earth

shazstar · 30th September 2002, 08:44 AM

lol....and I am willing to bet that the chances of that are very small.

Svarog · 30th September 2002, 08:48 AM

Not if we get our offworld allies the Guld to drag an asteroid using their ships...

PTeppic · 1st October 2002, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Svarog
That's what happened to the dinosaurs

I saw new(?) research about a month ago that suggested the dinosaurs were already almost extinct due to climate change, BEFORE the comet/asteroid impacted - and that simply finished a well under way process.

Quote:

Perhaps if it hit just north of Antartica so it doesn't melt the ice caps but is far-away enough from any populated land masses.

The tidal wave would be 100% as bad as it can get. I reckon you could say goodbye to southern South America, southern Africa etc. probably even Australasia...

But, the thought you inspired: what about hitting full-on Antartica itself... several miles of ice to melt through before hitting solid land: that would have to take a lot of the impact out of the bang, and reduce the dust "winter"???

Svarog · 1st October 2002, 06:28 AM

whats the fun of an asteroid hitting a planet if you can't see a big bang? j/k

But that's a good point, but no different than going through several kilometers of sea then hitting land, either way we're dead. Plus we get a lot more beaches

shazstar · 21st June 2004, 11:56 AM

Hmmm - 2 birds with one stone perhaps (forgive the pun)
maybe it would kill the Australian drought!
Bring on the asteroids!

29th September 2002, 08:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
Svarog System Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Galaxy of Ida Posts: 60	Well obviously the tidal waves would be weaker than ones closer to the sea. Depending on how strong the quake is that causes the waves, how far the waves have to go and how much the waves have to spread out. The strength of the wave would depend on the power of the trigger, in this case the quake caused by the meteor. If it hit Africa then the waves going towards india would have less space to diffract into, therefore each meter of wave would be more powerful. The waves going to America would have a nice wide open America to diffract into so each meter of wave that hits the coast would do less damage, spreading it out. The wave would destroy more of the coast but in terms of human lives it would do less damage at each major city it hits since power that would have hit the city in a small sea would be diverted to elsewhere along the coast, where hopefully it would only destroy a low populated area. So overall in terms of human lives it would make a difference.

30th September 2002, 06:24 AM	#17 (permalink)
PTeppic Reetou Diplomatic Corp Join Date: May 2001 Location: North-west UK Posts: 3,814	So in theory then, the best place would be in the centre of a large land-mass, the maximum distance from ANY ocean?

30th September 2002, 06:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
Svarog System Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Galaxy of Ida Posts: 60	I don't want to turn into an all-knowing Lysdexia (no offense buddy), so i'm gonna say it again, i'm not seismologist/ armageddon expert so i don't know. I'm guessing the best place to hit is the moon where noone gets hurt. Perhaps if it hit just north of Antartica so it doesn't melt the ice caps but is far-away enough from any populated land masses. But either way the resulting dust cloud would kill us all anyway. That's what happened to the dinosaurs

30th September 2002, 08:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
Svarog System Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Galaxy of Ida Posts: 60	Not if another asteroid were to hit the exact opposite side of the earth

30th September 2002, 08:44 AM	#21 (permalink)
shazstar Flygirl Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,211	lol....and I am willing to bet that the chances of that are very small.

30th September 2002, 08:48 AM	#22 (permalink)
Svarog System Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Galaxy of Ida Posts: 60	Not if we get our offworld allies the Guld to drag an asteroid using their ships...

1st October 2002, 06:28 AM	#24 (permalink)
Svarog System Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The Galaxy of Ida Posts: 60	whats the fun of an asteroid hitting a planet if you can't see a big bang? j/k But that's a good point, but no different than going through several kilometers of sea then hitting land, either way we're dead. Plus we get a lot more beaches

21st June 2004, 11:56 AM	#25 (permalink)
shazstar Flygirl Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,211	Hmmm - 2 birds with one stone perhaps (forgive the pun) maybe it would kill the Australian drought! Bring on the asteroids!