If I wanted to destroy the earth, and I mean fucking shatter it, what is the minimum size...

If I wanted to destroy the earth, and I mean fucking shatter it, what is the minimum size, speed and mass I would need of an asteroid, and what would be the best composition for this?

all you'd need is a single atom of hydrogen traveling at the speed of light

Nice try, Xorgon

You wouldn't need an asteroid, just keep sending africa food aid.

That's too expensive and takes too long. I need the world broken into at least sixteen pieces.

Scratch that, thirty-two pieces.

You're a retarded bigot if you think that Africans are any less capable of feeding themselves or building civilizations than any other races.
Africa's population growing to 2 billion is an opportunity for Africa to set its mark on science and technology, as they will finally be able to compete numerically with other continents.

Look up "relativistic kill missiles".
TL;DR - couple of tonnes at 99% C would do the trick.

Check out Nicoll-Dyson beams too whilst you're at it.

I think you misread that shitpost you responded to?

Elon Plz

is it feasible that there are asteroids flying around at 99% C?

no

Objects passing close to black holes can fuck off with some decent percentage of C.

The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu

Don't spoil it. I've only read the first book

First book I've enjoyed in a long time.

The Asteroid would need to be:

3,356,158 meters wide (3356.158km)
Be made of iron having a density of 8000 kg/m^3
Traveling 30km/s (67,000 mph)
Hit Earth at a 90 degree angle head on (Earth is traveling 30km/s too)

The result would be an asteroid belt between Venus and Mars. Anything less and the Earth will not overcome its own gravity, but would be a completely melted mass which would cool and form another planet.

Oh and it would need to hit sedimentary rock on land somewhere, not ocean or crystalline rock.

Would crashing the moon into the earth have the same effect?

No, it isn't large enough or dense enough for that speed to affect Earth enough to break Earth apart. Remember, the moon is actually a piece of something Mars sized that hit the Earth long ago. Now there's far less mass to it than it originally had.

It would need to travel as a much faster speed than 30km/s.

Would it be possible to get even close to shattering by using several smaller projectiles instead one large projectile?

wouldn't the forces involved with that process tear the object in question apart?

>2 billion niggers
>contributions to science and technology

topkek

take an object approximately the mass of earth and put it in the earth's path around the sun.

The earth will transfer most of its momentum in the collision. Even if the earth does not break, it will not have enough momentum to continue on a stable orbit. The Earth then spirals into the sun.

The moon would need to travel at 79.207km/s at the same trajectory as in to achieve the same results. That's 177,181.012mph.

The moon orbits Earth at 2,288mph (1.646km/s).

The crater would be 2,020 miles wide and 2.1 miles deep.

Lesser energies end up turning the planet into a molten blob. You need to use one massive explosion of energy to overcome the gravity.

ahahhahaah

>The crater would be 2,020 miles wide and 2.1 miles deep.

This was for "The moon orbits Earth at 2,288mph (1.646km/s)." Type of impact.

>those two billion niggers still won't match the scientific output of 20 million Australians

could our asteroid belt have once been a planet? scary

Possible, but unlikely.

Maybe that is where we originally came from....

...

try to find statistically promising electromagnetic fields surrounding and penetrating the earth and set up the conditions where the reaction would mess up the planet

something like the lightning bolt power source from the Frankenstein movies scaled up exponentially