>>689806

>accidently a whole planet

>>689806
SPORE !!!!!!!!!!

Where... where would this planet exist?

>>689806
Didn't you hear? They created Mars with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass


theoretically, we could create planets...it would just require a massive amount of energy and available mass, we'd probably have to be a type II civilization.

No.

>>689824
I was thinking that there would be a large scientific machine, much like the LHC, and it would be turned on, but something would malfunction and all these atoms and particles and whatever else would start to combine together to form a core, and then it's own gravitational pull. It would then tear the LHC apart, and then the building housing it, and so on. In my head, I'm imagining it as a miniature planet that is consuming ours as it grows inside of our own.

>>689840
Kinda like planet cancer :D

Ingredients:
-Planet A
-Planet B
-Massive energy
-Machine that can translate that energy into motion, in such a way that either planet will be affected

Step 1: Smash Planet A into Planet B
Alternative: Smash Planet B into Planet A

You should result in a Planet C. Planet C may need to cool for several million years before habitation is possible. May also require a dash of atmosphere if preferred.

>>689840

That would destroy our own planet in a couple of minutes.

Even if it takes days to fully envelop Earth, we'd still be dead long before that from earthquakes and floods.

>>689830
well, all we need to do is look at einsteins equation

>E=MC^2

now, bear with me here, because i might go over your head. if i do, thats ok, just ask me for clarification.

according to the big bang model, all the mass in the universe can be compressed into a tiny space. that means that we arent really all mass, we are just a fraction of that mass, an infinitesimal amount of mass. so, considering this, we can cross mass out so that the equation is E=C. ok, so now that we have that, we realize that energy equals the speed of light, so that if we are able to harness that energy, we can theoretically create an entire universe from the energy of light.

>>689863

mind blowing.

>>689863

It so happens that all the energy in the universe is already been used up to create this one.

Durr

Why the fuck would a new planet eat our planet?

So say the particles form a core. Guess what happens? It drops to the floor and that's the end of it. There's no reason for it to even consume the machine it's inside.

Here's a tip for "really out there" science fiction.

Never explain anything.

Seriously, you'll likely make a mistake. Nobody will blame you if something happens in your story for which no scientific precedent exists, and your story's scientists have no clue what's going on. It happens all the time in science.

Scientist #1: "We now know how much mass is in our galaxy!"
Scientist #2: "But don't we need like 200% more mass for the galaxy to not fly apart?"
Scientist #1: "..."

And now we have dark matter. Which are two fancy words for *shrug*.

I have asked this exact same question to /co/, and they have suggested dimensional rifts, wormholes, unstable molecules, and another collider firing at the same time, oh, and exploding black holes. They have also suggested to just not bother explaining it at all.

>>689881

You mean scientists don't know everything already?!

HOLY CRAP!

>>689881

is that why a lot of "hard" sci-fi takes place pre-space flight or has a very limited scope compared to the usual space operas from pre-1980?

>>689900

Just say that the machine creates a huge amount of energy and don't explain what else it is supposed to do.

Also, don't call it the LHC. In the public's mind, the LHC creates black holes, not planets.

>>689914
I wasn't going to call it the LHC, I'm just using that for lack of a better term.

>>689840
1. Primordial solar system cloud
2. Accelerating time bubble
3. Natural solar system formed in a fraction of the time

>>689904

No, a lot of hard science fiction focuses on the minute details. The Martian Chronicles was wrong about a ton of things, but it's still pretty solid. It just doesn't let itself get out of hand. When it talks about WW3 and the end of most of humanity, the book is very specific about everything surrounding the event.

>>689876
thats what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl4whN9aLMg

>>689932

Ray Bradbury stole my heart.

>>689863

don't believe this guy, he was being impish

refer to: >>689935 to get the joke

BOWLING BALLZ

Thank you for your time and ideas, /sci/.