TheStudiousResearcher

I know, but I am simply saying that my friends' theoretical explosion made from just a theoretical gravity well at the epicenter of an explosion; making a 100 ton explosion equal to the size a tennis ball due to the explosion being compressed or condensed by this theoretical gravity well smack dab in the center. (This is as easily as I can explain it with even making changes to the original notion to make things easier.) Because the legitimate weapon or natural cause for the explosion isn't relevant to the question, an explosion is a largely blanket term which is very much the case as even you know this, but seeing as how the explosion is more centered toward the actual act of the explosion itself more than the idea of the explosive or natural cause of it. My friend believes that these gravity contained explosions (somehow with a gravity well in the epicenter); can become future weaponized projectiles due to their lethal nature and that because of the fact that under normal conditions, the explosion itself would be catastrophically disasterous, however I argue that since the explosion is already being weighed down by this Gravity well at the epicenter of said explosion makes the overall destructive power useless, if he wishes to hurl a 1 ton explosive at his target, he may as well and not waste anymore TNT than needed be for the attack. Basically; I want to know who is right or who is wrong.

Yes, this is pretty much what I am speaking of, the explosion is more important than the explosive in this predicament.

Both me and him are both debating the explosion itself, no matter the target material or explosive material. That was the general idea.

An example; To literally scale a 100 ton explosion to the size of say a 1 ton explosion. He argues that with gravity somehow weighing the explosion to a tiny size like so will still be as powerful because it would essentially be a miniature explosion that would cause great damage to the target; (essentially creating a force of gravity inside the epicenter of the explosion and throwing it or somehow launching it into the target), but the surrounding area around the target is untouched and this contained/condensed explosion is more powerful due to normal circumstances; the explosion would be larger to around 100 tons. However I argue that even with the explosion being condensed or contained somehow with a theoretical gravity well, the gravity weighing it down would make it just as useful as using a 1 ton explosion on the target due to the gravity well holding the explosion back. Similar to how explosions differ in space and on the surface of Earth. Basically that.

Hello, I have been debating a lot of things with a friend of mine recently and one of the things he brought up was about this idea that explosions being contained (by a form of gravity well around the explosion itself molding the explosion, molding it to a certain shape or form, to go into direct detail), and the resulting explosion that is condensed or contained to a smaller size (for example, an explosion on Earth being smaller than the explosion in space due to the less gravitational intake holding the explosion back) is just as destructive as an explosion of equal size, by his words alone. I on the other hand don't see that; since an explosion is always weighed down more on Earth due more gravity intake reduces the magnitude, speed, and pretty much overall power of an explosion and argue that the explosion that is condensed/contained by a form of theoretical gravity well would actually weaken the magnitude and lower the destructive power of an explosion, even if normally said explosion would be much larger, faster, and overall more destructively powerful if said explosion WAS NOT condensed or contained by this theoretical gravity well. But I would like this debate to be settled seeing as how both of us were put at an impasse of sorts due to the logistical nature of both of our arguments and would like to know who is in the right here and who is correct. Will accept answers with good justification of who is right and who isn't.