Sayonara

Oh I get it. All rest frames are equally valid. What is the likelihood of this scenario?

You'd have to be quite careful moving the moon though... remember putting it off trajectory will change the shape of the orbit into an elipse. If you can't predict that (or, more impressively, control it), the moon could swing back and hit the planet.

The Tallest aren't very threatening, just throw some snacks at them and they'll be distracted for a while.

How can the moon be orbiting the planet if it maintains the same position between the planet and the sun? To MSpaint with you.

You can ignore the month as far as this problem goes. I'm not sure a moon can stay between planet and star. It pretty much has to orbit the planet, not just hang nearby.

That's a good reason for wanting to move a planet, but why in god's name would we want to down Phobos & Deimos, or make the moon's orbit erratic?

Well (a) you didn't answer the thread starter's question, and (b) that doesn't answer my question with regards to your proposal. So nyaaah

Well, that's a good answer, but there's no evidence for those

Great A'tuin isn't really a planet

To all proposals in this thread: WHY?

I would have thought black holes are pretty solid.

Called Cruithne: http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/faq.html

Do you mean in terms of diameter, or total mass?

I'm assuming you mean hypothetically speaking? You could probably model that on a home PC without too much trouble.

I'm sure faf and MrL are well aware that they don't know everything. If someone is obviously ignorant of information they need, and one attempts to educate them as to how much they don't know, I'd call that helpful, not arrogant.

Conspiracy theories without evidence belong in the pseudoscience forum.

True. Full impulse is meant to be 0.25C (lol). Although maybe it's possible to still create a weak warp bubble that... oh never mind. You're the physics monkey, you explain possible scenarios to me

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1961 Make sure you have some sort of corset device on before you start reading.

What power supply unit are you using? What power output? It's possible it's under- or over-powering the PC.

The later pictures from the Mars Global Surveyor (was it that one?) show a very different image. This might have something to do with the time dependent shadows falling over the rock formation. If you're going to make a statue that is to attract the attention of people in space, you don't build it so that it's only visible for a few minutes a day while the correct shadows are in place

You've already discussed this at great length with physicists in another thread, where you were told in explicit detail why it would not work, and why it would be stupidly expensive to make it work. Stop multiplying our workload please. Thread closed.

The primary function of the warp bubble is to bypass the relatavistic problems of instellar travel.

Densely packed lies ahoy! The "Exploded Planets!!!!!1" theory is much more interesting: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp (BTW, I happened to look up the meaning of "Skeptic", and it is "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions". Presumably then someone just suggested all that to the author and he/she agreed immediately.)

A 3-month study is neither here nor there, especially with unadjusted data. And, as one commenter pointed out under the article, had it taken Slammer into account the conclusions might have been quite different.

lol I think this is Rad's point. Moving your hand along the rope (pulling it in, in effect), is the same as giving the orbital object extra momentum in the direction of Earth. Wasn't his original question something about "where do you get that energy from"?