What if we could move the entire Earth like a spaceship?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

True, and they completely disregard the basics, like momentum and things like that (you fire a torpedo on an enemy ship, in space, but you don't get recoil/momentum backwards?). And lots. And lots more.

Oh no, they don't ignore it, they explain it away. Inertial dampeners!

 

The torpedoes are self-propelled with warp engines anyway, so they're like recoilless rifles in operation. They don't cause much recoil.

[Sisyphus]

Right, they just divert all power to the plot hole compensators.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

...after they've reversed the polarity, of course.

[pywakit]

Lol. You are killing me. STOP!!!

 

Oh well. At least I have given you all a way to amuse yourselves ...

 

Now about those energy requirements ......

[Janus]

Second, every SCIENTIFIC objection you raised, I was able to dismantle quite easily ... except for one. The amount of energy required to move Earth out of the solar system. I was informed it would take 900B times the average annual energy used by humans.

 

I think this was a straightforward calculation based on raising the HEIGHT of Earth relative to the sun. I don't know if this also included using the sun's gravity to boost our velocity or not. I don't know if this was a calculation that is valid as an application of steady force. AND I DON'T KNOW if the energy contained in 7M^3 miles of ice ( and the potential energy contained in an equal amount of seawater ) is sufficient to do the job, or if my method of utilizing this energy is scientifically valid.

 

 

That figure was obtained by finding the escape velocity from the Sun at the Earth's distance and then subtracting the Earth's orbital velocity. Then you find out how much energy it takes to get a mass the size of the Earth up to this speed. Note: it does not matter how you move away from the Sun, this is the amount of energy it will take. This is also a lower limit, assuming 100% of the energy is converted to Earth movement and no losses. That also assumes that you are applying that energy in the same direction as the Earth orbits. With your plane of placing the engines at the South pole, you lose this advantage, increasing the amount of velocity change you'll need.

 

You can't use the Sun to boost our velocity. (I assume you are thinking about a gravity slingshot, and they just don't work like that.) You'd have to use a body that has a velocity with respect to the Sun, like Jupiter. Now while it would be possible to use Jupiter in a slingshot maneuver to trim some of that energy in theory, it is not very practicable. You'd have to swing pretty near to Jupiter to get a good boost, and since Jupiter is some 26973 times more massive than our Moon you are going to get some huge Tides.( as in continent swamping).

 

Since your propulsion system is a action-reaction system, you will have to figure in the reaction mass into the problem. Now, assuming you only have to achieve that minimum velocity change mentioned above, and you could achieve a exhaust velocity of 10% of c(much better than anything we can achieve now), then you would exhaust all of the Earth's oceans as reaction mass before you got up to solar escape velocity. And that is not factoring in the fact that you are going to lose some of the effect of the exhaust velocity due to the fact that it will lose energy climbing out of Earth's gravity.

 

And that is not even considering the climatic effect of punching matter through the atmosphere at 10% of c. Assuming that your propulsion system was 99.9% efficient, this means it would still end up pumping 12,000 times the total energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun in a year into the atmosphere.

 

All in all, not a practicable exercise.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

And really, astrophysicists have theorized about changing our orbit by shuffling asteroids around and using their meager gravity to accomplish it. I don't think it's 'impossible' at all to increase our orbital speed. But it will take longer than 8 minutes to do it.

 

 

The difference here is that they are talking about incrementally moving the Earth out from the Sun over 100's of millions of years.

[pywakit]

That figure was obtained by finding the escape velocity from the Sun at the Earth's distance and then subtracting the Earth's orbital velocity. Then you find out how much energy it takes to get a mass the size of the Earth up to this speed. Note: it does not matter how you move away from the Sun, this is the amount of energy it will take. This is also a lower limit, assuming 100% of the energy is converted to Earth movement and no losses. That also assumes that you are applying that energy in the same direction as the Earth orbits. With your plane of placing the engines at the South pole, you lose this advantage, increasing the amount of velocity change you'll need.

 

You can't use the Sun to boost our velocity. (I assume you are thinking about a gravity slingshot, and they just don't work like that.) You'd have to use a body that has a velocity with respect to the Sun, like Jupiter. Now while it would be possible to use Jupiter in a slingshot maneuver to trim some of that energy in theory, it is not very practicable. You'd have to swing pretty near to Jupiter to get a good boost, and since Jupiter is some 26973 times more massive than our Moon you are going to get some huge Tides.( as in continent swamping).

 

Since your propulsion system is a action-reaction system, you will have to figure in the reaction mass into the problem. Now, assuming you only have to achieve that minimum velocity change mentioned above, and you could achieve a exhaust velocity of 10% of c(much better than anything we can achieve now), then you would exhaust all of the Earth's oceans as reaction mass before you got up to solar escape velocity. And that is not factoring in the fact that you are going to lose some of the effect of the exhaust velocity due to the fact that it will lose energy climbing out of Earth's gravity.

 

And that is not even considering the climatic effect of punching matter through the atmosphere at 10% of c. Assuming that your propulsion system was 99.9% efficient, this means it would still end up pumping 12,000 times the total energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun in a year into the atmosphere.

 

All in all, not a practicable exercise.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

The difference here is that they are talking about incrementally moving the Earth out from the Sun over 100's of millions of years.

 

Well, no. It doesn't sound very practical at all! However, you throw some unsupported statements out there. I don't know what you mean by the last statement, either. Seems out of context.

 

I didn't really think we could use the sun, and since we would be travelling north of the plane, Jupiter would never have been an option.

 

But back to enegy requirements. And let's be realistic about thrust output. Nothing better than we have now.

 

Oh. Before I forget. We would all be miles underground ( with sealed entrances ) by the time tidal forces ... if any ... would 'swamp' the continents. And since the entire surface will have a mile or two of ice on it eventually, damage done to the surface is irrelevant.

 

And the damage to the atmosphere is also irrelevant. We will not be exposed to it. We are pumping oxygen stripped from ice, or water. Plus we will have billions of plants underground to assist in the manufacture of oxygen, and scrubbing co2 out. As we get farther away from the sun, our atmosphere should condense. And when we get to Alpha, we will have all the time we need to restore a balance to Earth, as we will still have all the raw materials to work with.

 

But maybe you are suggesting that the hydrolasers will set the Earth's atmosphere 'on fire' so to speak? Or at the very least, we would heat up the surface by a few hundred degrees? Sounds pretty bad ...

 

Anyway, again I ask, what is the energy stored in 7 million cubic miles of ice?

 

Nevermind ... You telling me that we "would exhaust all the world's oceans" sounds very authoritative. But ... just so I won't think you pulled that out of thin air ... maybe you would be kind enough to tell me the energy contained in all the world's oceans instead. Doesn't have to be exact .... lol.

 

And one more thing ... water is not the only source of fuel .... maybe my hydrolasers are not the best method of propulsion available.

 

Perhaps a better way to accomplish this would be through matter conversion. How much energy is stored in say ... 100 million cubic miles of rock?

 

Not only do we have to escape our sun, we will need to 'decelerate' at the other end of the voyage.

 

As always, thank you very much for attempting a serious answer ...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Originally Posted by pywakit

 

And really, astrophysicists have theorized about changing our orbit by shuffling asteroids around and using their meager gravity to accomplish it. I don't think it's 'impossible' at all to increase our orbital speed. But it will take longer than 8 minutes to do it.

 

The difference here is that they are talking about incrementally moving the Earth out from the Sun over 100's of millions of years.

 

Right. OK, now the statement makes sense. Actually, they were talking about nudging it out in response to the sun using up it's hydrogen ... A few billion years from now.

Edited January 5, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Oh no, they don't ignore it, they explain it away. Inertial dampeners!

 

o3vxDcBLGaU

[pywakit]

Moo ... love the scottish one ... lol.

 

NOW STOP MUDDYING THE WATERS!

 

)

 

( Clearly I need to find amusing videos of our "fleet's" arrival at Alpha ... Hmmmmm )

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And I don't mean to nag here but ... you have to remember, I am treating this as a serious subject. The alternative to moving our planet is CERTAIN annihilation when the sun is impacted.

 

I can't seriously believe that humanity's response would be .....

 

"Oh well. I really would rather die now than go to all this trouble. Especially if the Earth won't be recognizable if we DO ever get to Alpha. Besides, we will probably all die anyway ... but even if we didn't ... living 6-25 miles undergound? FAGEDDABOUDIT!!!" ( Bronx accent ... lol ) "Forget about it!" for the linguistically challenged.

 

So I am actually trying to find out if it is IN FACT possible to do this. And please don't hurt my feelings anymore. Can't you see that I am a sensitive human being?

 

No respect ... **sigh**

 

Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another thing! Lol.

 

I can't help but think about how scared the pilgrims must have been as they set off across the atlantic ocean. But they were even more afraid of King George, and the Church. These were very brave peope ... to face the fear of the unknown ... JUST SO THEIR 'SPECIES' WOULD SURVIVE.

 

I also can't help but think about the lives our ancestors led 100,000 years ago. The comforts they DIDN'T have. The security they DIDN'T have. We would be far more comfortable, and secure than they ever were, once we got settled in.

 

Are we really so different from those people? Or have we become so spoiled we can't stand to suffer the slightest loss? The slightest inconvenience? So weak? So timid?

 

What has become of the species that withstood so much ... just for us to enjoy what we do now?

 

I know one thing for sure. Every kid on the planet would be up for this.

 

And I think ... ultimately ... Mankind too, would be up to this challenge. We are still a brave species ....

 

Good speech? Lol.

Edited January 5, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Janus]

Well, no. It doesn't sound very practical at all! However, you throw some unsupported statements out there. I don't know what you mean by the last statement, either. Seems out of context.

 

I didn't really think we could use the sun, and since we would be travelling north of the plane, Jupiter would never have been an option.

 

Then we won't worry about it

 

But back to enegy requirements. And let's be realistic about thrust output. Nothing better than we have now.

that would make things damn near impossible, I'll explain below.

 

 

 

Nevermind ... You telling me that we "would exhaust all the world's oceans" sounds very authoritative. But ... just so I won't think you pulled that out of thin air ... maybe you would be kind enough to tell me the energy contained in all the world's oceans instead. Doesn't have to be exact .... lol.

 

It can be determined by using the rocket equation:

 

[math]\Delta V = Ve \ln(MR)[/math]

 

delta V is the velocity change you need to make

Ve is the velocity of your exhaust

 

MR is the mass ratio. In this case the mass of the Earth before you start divided by the mass left after you've made your velocity change.

 

Remember we are talking about a rocket drive here. you have to throw mass away from the Earth in one direction in order to get the Earth to move in the other. This equation tells you how much reaction mass you have to throw away. It doesn't even worry about where the energy to throw the mass comes from.

 

So, assuming a right angle to our orbit trajectory, you will ne a delta v of 30,000 m/s to leave the Solar system. using the Ve of 10% of c, and solving for MR, we get a mass ratio of 1.001. Meaning we would have to throw away 0.1% of the Earth's total mass as reaction mass. The Earth's oceans only make up .023% of the Earth's mass.

 

Now consider what you said above about limiting thrust to what we can produce today. ION engines produce the best exhaust velocities we can do at the present time. Unfortunately, most of them use rare metals as raction mass. The experimental models that use hydrogen have exhaust velocities in the range of 60,000 m/s. Plugging this into our equation above gives a mass ratio of 1.65. Meaning we would have to throw away 40% of the Earth's mass to get the rest up to speed.

 

And one more thing ... water is not the only source of fuel .... maybe my hydrolasers are not the best method of propulsion available.

 

Perhaps a better way to accomplish this would be through matter conversion. How much energy is stored in say ... 100 million cubic miles of rock?

 

A problem here is that in order to do matter to energy conversion you need to combine matter and antimatter. Since we have no supply of antimatter, we'd have to make it, and it takes more energy to make it that we'd get out of it.

 

Not only do we have to escape our sun, we will need to 'decelerate' at the other end of the voyage.

 

That goes without saying, but first we need to consider the feasability of moving the Earth out of the Solar system in the first place.

 

The biggest problem I see with moving the Earth to another system is that it is wastefull; you are moving mostly dead mass. If you have the technology to do so, you have the technology to move smaller bodies. Honeycomb a number of asteroids and boost them out of the Solar system. For that fact, Ceres has a volume of 483,810,727 cubic km. The surface area of the land area of the Earth is 340,000,000 square miles. Ceres is only 1/6000 the mass of the Earth. (and after you honeycomb it out even less).

 

Maybe we have discovered complete matter to energy conversion and have energy to burn, and feel that we just have to take the Earth with us. In that case, there is a better way to do it with out attaching rocket engines to the Earth.

[Sisyphus]

 

Anyway, again I ask, what is the energy stored in 7 million cubic miles of ice?

 

Zero useable energy. I should have pointed this out earlier, but there were a lot of different issues going on. You can get energy from burning hydrogen, but you will always get less than you used to separate it out in the first place.

 

Perhaps a better way to accomplish this would be through matter conversion.

 

How?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And I don't mean to nag here but ... you have to remember, I am treating this as a serious subject. The alternative to moving our planet is CERTAIN annihilation when the sun is impacted.

 

For the planet itself. Not for the human species.

 

I can't help but think about how scared the pilgrims must have been as they set off across the atlantic ocean. But they were even more afraid of King George, and the Church. These were very brave peope ... to face the fear of the unknown ... JUST SO THEIR 'SPECIES' WOULD SURVIVE.

 

I take it it's been a long time since history class, eh?

[pywakit]

Excellent analysis. And I thank you very much for taking the time to do so. Perhaps you would not mind staking it just one step farther ... ( no, I don't concede without a fight ... lol )

 

Instead of 'going north' let's move out very slowly, and carefully along the plane of the ecliptic, utilizing our current orbital velocity. Yes, this means going through the asteroid belt, and probably dealing with Jupiter's ( and the others ) tidal forces. Not necessarily impossible as we should have little difficulty 'timing' all points of encounter with the other bodies.

 

Strictly from an energy standpoint, I am assuming we would now be using a tiny fraction of the energy required to move out at right angles. But I could certainly be wrong about this, too.

 

I am trying to determine if it is an IMPOSSIBILITY v incredible challenge. Using 40% of the Earth's mass is clearly not an option. Your honeycomb scenario sounds great, but my #1 goal is to save EVERY single human possible. And we want ALL humans to participate in this effort. A collective effort where our very survival as a species is at stake.

 

I understand the desire to not be 'wasteful' but even a 'damaged' or depleted planet is more protection than no planet. We have to remember that if we leave Earth behind, it is going to suffer a great deal more than a 40% loss. It will be, in all likelihood, simply swallowed up by the sun.

 

If this ( moving out on the plane of the ecliptic ) would use say 1% ( just speaking hypothetically ) of the energy needed to move out at right angles would that bring our mass/energy requirements down to .4%? Math screwy? Lol. If not, using around 4/10ths of a percent of the Earth's mass would be quite acceptable.

 

All that 'dead' mass is actually going to be very useful to us. It would still leave us with a magnetic field. An atmosphere. Natural resources. Sure, we would learn by necessity to become extremely energy efficient in our lives, but these are relatively simple adaptations, well within our current technological capabilities.

 

Thanks again, and hope I am not being too irritating.

[Sisyphus]

You would need about half as much energy if you were utilizing current orbital velocity.

[pywakit]

Zero useable energy. I should have pointed this out earlier, but there were a lot of different issues going on. You can get energy from burning hydrogen, but you will always get less than you used to separate it out in the first place.

 

Yes. I am aware of this.

 

 

 

How?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

I misspoke. I meant simply another form of propulsion.

 

 

For the planet itself. Not for the human species.

 

Interstellar ships will not adequately protect the spacefarers, and if there is nothing at Alpha ( no planet even remotely capable of supporting human life ) the remaining humans die. So yes. Planet AND species die.

 

 

 

I take it it's been a long time since history class, eh?

 

Care to explain this comment? They didn't come to America on a lark. They were being persecuted by K.G. and the 'reformed' Church of England. Apparently you might want to read up on YOUR history.

 

Perhaps you are unaware of the on-going power struggle ( in those days ) between royalty and the church. Ever hear of King James? He decided he didn't like the balance of power having shifted to the church, so he utilized a brand new invention to wrest power away.

 

You see, all the King's subjects got their information on God through the auspices of the Church. Owning a Bible was illegal. For that matter, owning ANYTHING was illegal as everything was owned by the King, unless granted by the King. Even the very PERSONS of the King's Subjects were owned by the King. Anyway, God told the Archbishop, and he disseminated that information down through the ranks to the masses.

 

King James pulled the biggest power grab of the millenium by using the printing press to print up Bibles translated to ENGLISH and distributing them to the masses ... and decreeing it legal to own one.

 

The result of this was to make him the most popular king in history. The unintended side effect was to educate the masses, and to allow them freedom of thought for the first time. And in excercising this freedom, they began to interpret God's Word in their own manner, independant of the Church's filtering system.

 

Quickly, variations of the 'official' religion began to emerge. Quakers, Protestants, and many many more. The masses were no longer so willing to blindly take the Church's word for anything, and the Church was very threatened by this. And so was Royalty. Things were quickly getting out of hand ....

 

By the time King George came along, the Church's minions were making life pretty bad for those who would question the Church's Authority.

 

King George, seeing where this was headed decided on an 'unholy' alliance with the Church, and declared the Official Religion of the Church would be the only LEGAL religion. This decree only gave more strength to the followers of the Church of England, and the slaughter of the disobedient masses began in earnest.

 

The pilgrims were given the option of leaving by the King. The alternatives were death, or submission to the Church.

 

So yes ... it was a matter of survival of their 'species' in the sense that religious freedom, and freedom of thought were more important than the risks involved in taking such a chance crossing the ocean in those tiny ships.

 

But maybe you are right. Maybe it has been too long since I have studied history.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You would need about half as much energy if you were utilizing current orbital velocity.

 

Janus? Do you concur? If so, 20% of the Earth's mass will not be acceptable, either. The only options left would be to invent a much more efficient method of propulsion, or an entirely different method of moving the planet.

Edited January 5, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

What counts as an "interstellar ship?" You're effectively saying that no space colony of any kind can ever be self-sufficient. That seems like an extraordinary and unsupported assertion.

 

As for history, I was just poking fun for getting your monarchs mixed up. There wasn't a "King George" until 1714. And there was a Church of England, of which the monarch was in fact the head, since Henry VIII in 1534. And there was an official English translation of the Bible since 1538, though various unofficial ones predated it. And of course this didn't set off the Protestant Reformation, which started decades earlier. But none of this really seems relevant to planet-moving.

[pywakit]

What counts as an "interstellar ship?" You're effectively saying that no space colony of any kind can ever be self-sufficient. That seems like an extraordinary and unsupported assertion.

 

As for history, I was just poking fun for getting your monarchs mixed up. There wasn't a "King George" until 1714. And there was a Church of England, of which the monarch was in fact the head, since Henry VIII in 1534. And there was an official English translation of the Bible since 1538, though various unofficial ones predated it. And of course this didn't set off the Protestant Reformation, which started decades earlier. But none of this really seems relevant to planet-moving.

 

Lol. I stand corrected on the monarchs. On the other issue, there is a major difference between a 'space colony' and interstellar flight. Certainly, if there is a way to afford protection from high energy particles, and a way to keep the colony supplied, then space colonies are great. I think such a colony will need at the very least, a moon's worth of raw materials to be viable, and this would mean a 'stationary' colony.

 

I will go back and refresh my memory on monarchs. Thank you. But I still stand by my other assertions. I apologize for speaking in such general terms, however ...

 

For any who may be interested, this is a very good timeline of the events leading up to the persecution of those people who set sail .....

 

http://www.universalteacher.org.uk

Edited January 5, 2010 by pywakit

[Janus]

 

 

Janus? Do you concur? If so, 20% of the Earth's mass will not be acceptable, either. The only options left would be to invent a much more efficient method of propulsion, or an entirely different method of moving the planet.

 

That's about what I come up with.

[pywakit]

That's about what I come up with.

 

Ok Moo. I concede. ( for now )

 

Warp Drive it is ..... lol.

 

Thank you Janus. And Sisyphus, too.

 

Guess we better hope our sun doesn't ever take a hit.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok. I'm over my depression. Lol. So let's build a collider out in space, create a stable black hole and have Earth 'fall' toward it.

 

Or figure out a way to make Earth appear to the universe as a 'massless photon'. This was the 'super-technology' that our previous inhabitants left behind for whoever came along after. And this technology was going to speed up our trip to Alpha considerably ... and to points beyond.

 

Now I am going to have to re-write my script. **sigh**

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ps: Moo ... once we invent 100% matter-to-energy propulsion systems, I'm taking Earth to Alpha Centauri! Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok. Instead of leaving the Moon behind, we use it for our fuel supply. Not sure how yet. I will have to think about this a little more ...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok. Let's see how stupid I can look!

 

)

 

Let's use the Moon AS our engines. Build them on the Moon, instead. Position it on the right trajectory, and use it's gravity to 'tug' us along behind.

 

The really nice thing about using the Moon this way is it will act as the 'perfect' shock absorber for impacts.

 

But this probably defies the laws of physics, right?

Edited January 6, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Janus]

Ok. Let's see how stupid I can look!

 

)

 

Let's use the Moon AS our engines. Build them on the Moon, instead. Position it on the right trajectory, and use it's gravity to 'tug' us along behind.

 

The really nice thing about using the Moon this way is it will act as the 'perfect' shock absorber for impacts.

 

But this probably defies the laws of physics, right?

 

In theory, it works. You stop the Moon in its orbit, apply a thrust to it that exactly counters its tendency to to fall to Earth, and you have a gravity tug.

 

The problems:

1.The exhaust gasses will be directed at the Earth. Some of them will fan out enough to miss, but the rest will hit the Earth, robbing it of thrust.

 

2.The thrust needed. At the distance of the Moon the acceleration due to gravity is 0.0029 m/s². Now this might not seem like much, but it has to be multiplied by the moon's mass to get the required force which is 2.1315e+20 N. For comparison, the Shuttle has a thrust of 30 million N. So it would take the thrust of 2e+12 shuttles to provide the needed acceleration. The surface area of the moon is 3.8e+13 m², only half of which you would put your rockets. This means that you would have to squeeze 1 shuttle per every 2 square meters of the Moon's surface to provide the needed thrust.

 

I use the shuttle because it is one of the highest thrust rockets made. Of course, chemical rockets are way too inefficient for our purposes (after all, just because we are using the Moon to Pull the Earth doesn't mean that it will take any less energy to move the Earth) Ion engines help with efficiency, but at the price of a lower thrust. If you can't squeeze enough shuttles onto the Moon to do the job, you'll never squeeze enough ion engines onto the moon.

 

3. You still need the same amount of reaction mass for any given type of engine. since the Moon only masses 1/81 that of the Earth, ion engines would use up that mass before we got to escape velocity.

 

So once again, without a revolutionary new propulsion system, we come up short of doing the job.

[pywakit]

Right. I should have looked up the Moon's mass before I wrote those posts. My bad. Back to the drawing board ....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok. What about this. It would be a scary ride, but what if we dropped into Venus's orbit, 108M kilometers from the sun, and used it's gravity to increase our velocity? Could we slingshot this way? I don't think it would burn away our atmosphere .... but we might get a little sun-burned. Even miles underground ...

 

Just speculating out loud.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I guess what I am really asking is ... if we used a combination of methods ... engines on the Moon, and Earth ... and Venus and/or other objects within the solar system for gravitational assist, would it be possible to accomplish this?

 

I don't give up easily, do I? Lol.

Edited January 6, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[AngryTurtle]

i didn't read the 3rd 4th and 5th pages of this thread but i'm surprised nobody thought about attempting to use a super dense Jupiter sided planet screaming past earth as some sort of theoretical launching mechanism yet.

[pywakit]

i didn't read the 3rd 4th and 5th pages of this thread but i'm surprised nobody thought about attempting to use a super dense Jupiter sided planet screaming past earth as some sort of theoretical launching mechanism yet.

 

I am very pleased that this is a source of amusement to you. Good idea. Lol.

[AngryTurtle]

very dense planet ( larger diameter than Jupiter ) on a collision course with our sun.

 

something large enough to put a large enough hurt on our sun to make us want to get out of dodge is bound to be a gravitational slingshot waiting to happen.

 

assuming:

-its coming past earth

-it doesn't have any life extinguishing debris as it flies absurdly close by (on a spacial level)

-is positioned perfectly to launch us at (once again spacial level) a snail pace through the universe at a habitable zone

 

surprisingly still better than turning the polar ice caps into rocket fuel in my humble opinion.

 

(this entire post assumed your last post was sarcasm)

[pywakit]

something large enough to put a large enough hurt on our sun to make us want to get out of dodge is bound to be a gravitational slingshot waiting to happen.

 

assuming:

-its coming past earth

-it doesn't have any life extinguishing debris as it flies absurdly close by (on a spacial level)

-is positioned perfectly to launch us at (once again spacial level) a snail pace through the universe at a habitable zone

 

surprisingly still better than turning the polar ice caps into rocket fuel in my humble opinion.

 

(this entire post assumed your last post was sarcasm)

 

Incorrect. I was actually intrigued. At this point I'm willing to consider any reasonable solution. It WAS a good idea, assuming the above, and it doesn't rip our planet apart from tidal forces.

 

Also, I am quite pleased that my story has generated this much interest. Whether from the serious debaters or those just finding the thought entertaining.

 

I never thought of using the Rogue, because I was convinced of two things. First, that we could move Earth as I described, and second, that the impact with the sun would cause a shock and radiation blast that would 'probably' catch us as we exited from the solar system, even with a big head start.

 

However, unless we could position Earth beforehand, it seems like the odds of the Rogue having the right trajectory at the correct time are a little low. And from the standpoint of the TV series, perhaps too coincidental.

 

So maybe ... again ... a combination of methods.

[AngryTurtle]

maybe we should be more debating the actual repercussions of the "rogue"'s impact with the sun, what kind of effects would really happen if a giant ball of plasma were actually to be struck by a jupiter sized ball? i mean the sun is vastly larger than jupiter and being comprised out of a material that would be relatively absorbent to impacts that added to the fact that the radiation would really only be majorly dispersed upon impact in the direction at which it was impacted (i believe it wouldn't go through and make a solar exit wound) so the fact earth would likely only be dealing with possible space fallout rather than Armageddon status doomsday one would have to seriously weight the options and considering thousands or millions of years in deep space massive extinctions exhausting all of earths fuels and total destruction of surface ecosystems. Maybe, we should put more thought into our option of not moving at all... or maybe you should just change your rogue planet into a rogue... black hole? or a rogue neutron star?

[michel123456]

I don't give up easily, do I? Lol.