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

[mooeypoo]

You are a very patient scientist. I like you already. But your response to our predicament is ( forgive me please ) not very rational. Please explain ( or calculate ) how many ships we would have to build to transport SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE! OMG!

For one, to be perfectly honest and pessimistic, I don't believe that all 7-billion will be saved.. If you face imminent danger and you want to save the human race, you don't need to save *all* humans. Not that I would totally support such decision, or be willing to make it, but I am not too sure it's all that obvious. Big ships carrying lots of people from various countries are enough... but that's a whole different issue. Also, as a TV show, it was done before

 

But my point is this: In order to build the technology you are offering, we would need such a production going on that I am not sure it will be more than building a few humongous ships. Especially if we decide that we don't care stripping the planet off. I'm not sure, and I am not sure you can calculate that, but what you're offering is "OMG!" too

 

I'll try ... Let's see. How many could realistically fit on each ship? Shall we say ... 10,000? That means you have to build SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND SHIPS. Ooooops. WE need more ships. Unless we are not bring any animals with us. Triple it. Wait. We need to bring reserve supplies. Food. Water. You know we can not recycle 100% of these things. Close ... but we will lose some every year.

Why? Why not a ship that can carry a million? Go big.

 

But yeah, read up -- I'm not as optimistic as to think whoever actually builds these things (governments? private institutions?) will care to save *ALL* humans. I think it probably will be much more plausible for them to want to save humanity as a whole, and hence take "representatives" or who they deem as representing humanity.

 

How big must these ships be to carry 10,000 people safely? A mile or 2 in diameter? They will have to be huge rotating cylinders, since we must have artificial grav.

Not remotely close to how big the Earth is, though.. so they will be much more maneuverable, easier to take care of and take less fuel. In the long run (and the trip is long), it sounds like a much better alternative.

 

How will we transport all the materials to space for these ships? Will we build them in space, or will we go to the Moon and build them there? I think I'd rather work in Antarctica.

The ideal would be to build them in space already, and if we're really tight for time and stressed for a solution, then we can find ways to send lots and lots of rockets up. Daily. With lots of people and equipment. Again, I doubt the *entire* of humanity will be saved. I doubt anyone would make this their plan.

 

How are we going to transport all the aged, and infirm to these ships? Or do we just say ... "tough luck"? How about transporting all the animals? What about all the sea-life?

I don't know if "tough luck" would be it, but, yes, kinda. I have a more pessimistic view of the future and the money-holders' interests, I guess

 

To do it your way, we will have to build AT LEAST THREE MILLION ships at MINIMUM! Out in space! Yikes!!!

Maybe, but would your solution (building underground, self sufficient cities to house *ALL* of humanity, build the pyramids to stir, build something to control the stirring, build something to make proper observations, and make sure you cooperate with all parts of the world without satellites and without the ability to walk on the surface) be less "Yikes"? I'm not sure.

 

And again ... what if we get to Alpha ... nearly dead from lack of water ... horribly mutated from radiation ... and low on every resource .... and there's NO good planet to land on? What do we do then? I'm thinking ... die.

You would get all the above on the Earth too. Those are problems you need to solve either way. By the time we get to Alpha, the Earth won't be "good planet" to land on either.

 

Yes. You are absolutely right on one thing. Earth would not be very recognizable .... for a long, long time. But we will have learned by necessity to be much better stewards of our planet. We will have an extremely energy efficient society world wide. We will have learned to work together like never before. And we will still have all the resources of an entire planet.

I think you're guessing that the Earth will "resurrect" after reaching Alpha centauri. That's not quite how things work. I don't see how Earth will regain atmosphere after it being lost for an entire trip for 4.3 light years.

The Earth won't just be "unrecognizeable" it would stop being habitable. Unless we "terraform" it, that would be permanent.

 

Since we're talking about science fiction, you could invent a technology that "reignites" the atmosphere (hence, terraforms the planet) but without it, it isn't going to happen.

 

 

But ... of course ... if it's IMPOSSIBLE, then no point in trying.

That depends trying what...

 

If you mean trying to take the entire planet for a ride, no, I don't think there's a point in trying because I think there are more viable solutions.

 

If you mean trying to make a TV show, I think there *is* a point, because realistic or not, this is a fascinating idea that has a lot of potential both in the drama aspect and the 'what if' science aspect.

 

Hmmm. I guess you don't live on the salt water. Our planet is subject to quite severe tidal forces 24/7. You just don't pay attention, because it is 'normal'. We are not 'suddenly' accelerating. You would never feel a thing.

Woah, we're talking MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH MUCHMUCH stronger force, here, pywakit.

 

There will definitely be Geological implications, and I am quite certain we can calculate them. I did that with my professor in terms of tidal forces -- and those are tiiiiny compared to what it would take to increase our velocity and get us out of orbit around the sun.

 

We will build fantastic futurized cities underground. Almost all the comforts of home. Never have a shortage of ANYTHING. Just no real sky to look at. Each 'city' could have a light source that tracks across the ceiling, approximating the sun's movements. You would be very surprised how quickly we would get used to this. We could have a 'virtual' Moon, and stars too. We can build all this stuff right now if we wanted to. Ever look at a diamond screen at a football game?

Well, again, that's a fantasy novel/tv-show must, and I can't wait to see the special effects.

 

Is it realistic? Maybe.. it would just add to the workload that I mentioned in the start and increase the "not sure it would take less than" hypothesis I raised.

It might be possible, but it's not that simple, and we will have to deal with quite a lto of problems along the way.

 

The least of which, btw, is that humans and animals need the sun, and some need the moon. Lack of sunlight for an extended period of time is known to cause the extinction of some species..

 

No more monsoons killing people. No more hurricanes. No more starving people dropping like flies. Excellent and controlled immunizations. Sports. Academics. Tv. Movies. Internet. Hot rod mag-lev cars. Lol. But probably less flying, and no more ocean cruises. Sort of. We could still cruise the oceans in submarines.

Right, well you will have other problems killing people

 

Cramped atmosphere underground, lack of sunlight, problem with ventilation and heat, reaction with chemicals underground, waste management (for the ENTIRE world, yes?) and taking care of the animals you want to keep down there.. and those are only problems off the top of my head. There are lots more.

 

I live on the water ( Puget Sound ) in a house I designed and built in 1995. I would miss it terribly. But I would not have the slightest qualms about embarking on this fantastic journey! Maybe I could rate a little ( underground ) lakeside cottage ... Lol.

 

Yeah I would too, for the adventure, that's why i would watch the show if you ever manage to produce it

[pywakit]

Moo. You are killing me. Lol. I am going to make some dinner. Then I am going to logically rebutt all your points. You are in New York, so read it tomorrow.

 

But if you guys would just come up with a 'scientific' reason this wouldn't work, then I will be happy to shut up.

 

One quick point. I am sure you are aware that Earth does not maintain a 'steady' velocity in it's orbit around the sun. If I am not mistaken, tidal forces and our elliptical orbit speed us up and slow us down all the time. And did you feel a little queasy when we hit the winter solstace? That annoying 'tilt'. Bugs the hell out of me.

[mooeypoo]

BTW, Pywakit, I am hoping that you're enjoying this as much as I do I love thinking about future applications and analyzing those things. I might be a pessimist compared to your idea, but the debate so far is quite enjoyable. I hope you don't take my rebuttals as a sign you should drop the idea. Far from it.

 

And another BTW, I *love* Battlestar Gallactica - specially the new version - and some of it has some decent realistic applications, some doesn't. The parts that don't, though, *sound* realistic enough to maintain my enjoyment of the show. Remember that -- we're talking about scifi here, so I might be a pessimistic hardass in terms of reality, but I still see value in your idea as a story and a show. You shouldn't give up on it.

[pywakit]

One more.

 

Moo wrote:

 

For one, to be perfectly honest and pessimistic, I don't believe that all 7-billion will be saved.. If you face imminent danger and you want to save the human race, you don't need to save *all* humans. Not that I would totally support such decision, or be willing to make it, but I am not too sure it's all that obvious. Big ships carrying lots of people from various countries are enough... but that's a whole different issue. Also, as a TV show, it was done before

 

But my point is this: In order to build the technology you are offering, we would need such a production going on that I am not sure it will be more than building a few humongous ships. Especially if we decide that we don't care stripping the planet off. I'm not sure, and I am not sure you can calculate that, but what you're offering is "OMG!" too

 

Moo, if we just sent say 7 million people on this journey to 'save' the human race ... and somebody ... ANYBODY ... took it upon himself or themselves to decide who gets to go and who gets to stay behind and face certain death .... there is going to be a big problem. You are leaving 1000 people behind for each person who gets to go. I can assure you, those 7 million aren't going anywhere. And if you think they could somehow 'trick' the remaining doomed people by withholding the truth ... that would be impossible. People will find out. This secret could never be kept. Guaranteed. Some people have a conscience. And some people would try to cheat the system. But the bottom line is ... we just ain't that altruistic. not even close.

 

And the people who would have been left behind will slaughter every single one of those 7 million for trying to leave them behind to die. Think they won't?

 

And your point about arriving at Alpha with a bum planet. It would be a 'bum' planet perfectly capable of continuing to support us.

 

Did you know that there is rather strong evidence that earth was once a 'snowball' in the past? It recovered before. Certainly, we have had ice ages, have we not? And we will again. The caves will not be cold dark damp places. Good heavens. And we DON'T need the sun. We can create artificial sunlight. Come on. Grasping at straws .....

 

Every good thing that can be engineered into these habitats will be in play. How many live and work right now ... essentially underground? In your latitude, and mine, we get up in the dark. Go to work inside an artificially lit building. Get off work after dark. If we are lucky ... if it is not raining, or heavily overcast, we might get 10 minutes of sunlight. Doesn't seem to be killing us yet.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Of course, if your mind is already made up and you don't care to debate this anymore, just say the word ....

 

Hope that's not the case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo. Check this ....

 

Yamantau: A Future Armageddon?// Viewzone

 

http://www.viewzone.com/yamantau

 

And read the Congressional record link.

Edited December 27, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that all good science fiction stories are allowed one good break, or set of generally-related breaks with reality, and the author can do anything they want with that so long as they are utterly consistent on that one break. You want FTL communication, fine, just don't tell me later that your whiztalker can, oh by the way, beam the hero up from an about-to-be-destroyed planet. I know a deus ex machina when I see one, and I also know an early setup when I see one ("don't push that button, we haven't figured out what it does yet"!).

 

 

 

Heh, no, I'm not familiar with that.

 

Just on the remote chance that you're interested (grin), Space:1999 was a late-1970s SF show starring Martin Landau (fresh from Mission:Impossible) as the commander of a permanent base on the moon. Their job is storing Earth's spent nuclear fuel which explodes in the first episode catapulting the moon out of Earth's orbit and into the heavens (quick, how many objections did you come up with?). Each episode involves the wayward moon arriving in a new solar system (wow!) and encountering aliens in rubber suits, black holes, etc -- the usual suspects. Basically Star Trek, right down to the red shirts and phasers, with the amusing twist of the "ship" continuing on its merry way by the end of the episode whether they got back to it on time or not.

[pywakit]

Moo, I have a small confession to make. I know I said originally that I had written a short story about this. That was true. But I failed to mention that the story was just a fun side effect of my actual purpose.

 

When Armageddon came out, I had a thought. What would we do if something way worse was going to happen? Thinking big, I thought .... well, everyone knows our sun will last another 3 billion years. So what would it take to change that? Then I thought of Orpheus. It's happened before. Why couldn't it happen again? Man thinks so small. Asteroids, and comets. But those are not the only things out there that will kill us.

 

So it was really a mental exercise to see what the best possible solution was to Earth's impending ... very real, and total annihilation. If there was one at all ...

 

I thought very long about the 'send the cream of the crop' scenario. I tried to be optimistic about humanities 'inherent?' altruism. But even if we sent 1 billion to Alpha, that leaves 6 billion behind to die. Families torn apart. Envy. Jealousy. Fear. Suspicion. Hatred.

 

Our planet would dissolve into utter chaos. It just was not going to work. Maybe in the movies, but not real life.

 

I thought of the logistical problems too, and they were just ridiculous. We would be sending hundreds if not thousands of rockets up every day. Think of the support network tens of thousands of 'space workers' would need. Where are you going to house all these workers? How are we going to feed them? And working in zero G? I don't think so. It would have to be that way in all likelihood until the outer hull is done.

 

And I thought of the law of diminishing returns, and realized by the time our space-farers got to Alpha things would be pretty bad. And if there was nothing at Alpha ... we were screwed. Since the likelihood of a suitable planet was very slim ... as in extremely so ... the ship scenario just was not going to be a viable solution.

 

So the only alternative was to move our whole planet. I set about to see if it would work. Not being a physicist, I had to ask questions of people I know who are relatively bright in that field. I studied underground 'cities' like Mt. Weather ( as much as I could anyway ). I watched the head of FEMA being interviewed in the 90s ( on CNN, I think ). He was asked about underground facilities that were in place around the country ( that had been built to survive a direct nuclear hit ) for the 'special' people in our country. Caught off guard by the question, he admitted they existed, and that the 'special' people all had access to these facilities. He said "We have given them a number to call in the event of nuclear attack." He was fired right after the program aired.

 

When the cold war ended, that Russian site was opened up to inspection, because the Russian economy underwent implosion, and they were appealing to the American government ( as I recall ) for funding fot their underground 'nuclear facility'. I think it was CBS that went on a little train ride into the mountain. Cold and damp? Not at all. Beautifully lit ... totally modern. Quite astounding. I think 20,000 people went by train each day into the mountain from a city close by.

 

One by one I went through the problems ... and soon realized that we could handle them all. Difficult to be sure ... but within our technological capabilities. My physics friends told me that my theory of speeding earth up would do what I thought it would. We are not locked in orbit. They wanted to know how I would propose to do this, and of course they said there would be a host of problems ... but they didn't think they were insurmountable. They were more concerned with the Moon than anything ... Lol. But they did say that we could escape from the Moon. Carefully.

 

Actually ... when I told them how I planned to push Earth, they seemed a little blown away. They were not so sure we could build those hydrolasers at first ... but they decided it was not an insurmountable challenge either.

 

Ok. Now I'm going back and address the points you made that are not coverd here ...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that all good science fiction stories are allowed one good break, or set of generally-related breaks with reality, and the author can do anything they want with that so long as they are utterly consistent on that one break. You want FTL communication, fine, just don't tell me later that your whiztalker can, oh by the way, beam the hero up from an about-to-be-destroyed planet. I know a deus ex machina when I see one, and I also know an early setup when I see one ("don't push that button, we haven't figured out what it does yet"!).

 

 

 

 

 

Just on the remote chance that you're interested (grin), Space:1999 was a late-1970s SF show starring Martin Landau (fresh from Mission:Impossible) as the commander of a permanent base on the moon. Their job is storing Earth's spent nuclear fuel which explodes in the first episode catapulting the moon out of Earth's orbit and into the heavens (quick, how many objections did you come up with?). Each episode involves the wayward moon arriving in a new solar system (wow!) and encountering aliens in rubber suits, black holes, etc -- the usual suspects. Basically Star Trek, right down to the red shirts and phasers, with the amusing twist of the "ship" continuing on its merry way by the end of the episode whether they got back to it on time or not.

 

Yes Pangloss. Quite familiar with it. Never really cared for it. I guess because I didn't care for Landau's eyes. Too weird. Lol. Wasn't it his wife, Barbara Bain who starred with him?

 

I'm in my 50s.

 

Moo! I am not enjoying this. You are making me work to prove my case.

 

Lol. Ok. Maybe I enjoy it a little.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

For one, to be perfectly honest and pessimistic, I don't believe that all 7-billion will be saved.. If you face imminent danger and you want to save the human race, you don't need to save *all* humans. Not that I would totally support such decision, or be willing to make it, but I am not too sure it's all that obvious. Big ships carrying lots of people from various countries are enough... but that's a whole different issue. Also, as a TV show, it was done before

Who is this 'you' you speak of? You are talking in abstract. There is no 'you'. There is 'we'. And we all have an opinion. And we all want to live. And we all are not going to like the selection process. And we all are going to do anything we can to survive. It's the most basic of human traits. Given a choice between trying to move our planet and dying or surviving together ... or sending a few 'lucky' ones to their very likely deaths while the rest of us CERTAINLY die .... I'm thinking the vote is going to come down heavily on moving the planet. But I'm sure there will be 7 million ( lol ) voting against it.

 

But my point is this: In order to build the technology you are offering, we would need such a production going on that I am not sure it will be more than building a few humongous ships. Especially if we decide that we don't care stripping the planet off. I'm not sure, and I am not sure you can calculate that, but what you're offering is "OMG!" too

 

Ok. Compare an unlimited supply of manpower, supplies, machinery, logistical support and genius transforming our planet into a stellar ship, to sending a few thousand up to work in zero g. Bet we finish our work before the space guys do.

 

Don't you dare ask .... "Well, who's going to PAY for this?".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

Not remotely close to how big the Earth is, though.. so they will be much more maneuverable, easier to take care of and take less fuel. In the long run (and the trip is long), it sounds like a much better alternative.

 

At the speeds your ship will need to go ( or our planet ) one hit and your ship is gone. From something as small as a grapefruit. Think you can really out-maneuver every rock? Every chunk of ice? Never happen in a million years. Our planet will take hit after hit like that and do just fine.

 

Easier to take care of? I'd much rather work under pressurized conditions, with normal gravity. Gonna take along a few spare ion drives? That will be fun replacing in space. What if there is an accident and you lose your fuel? Uh oh. But you will run out even if you don't lose it. We won't. Ever.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

I don't know if "tough luck" would be it, but, yes, kinda. I have a more pessimistic view of the future and the money-holders' interests, I guess

 

Yes, me too. And I should point out that I am anti death penalty. But I think we have plenty of evidence in our histories that if the 'money people' go too far ... they end up dead. "Let Them Eat Bread". I think that is what M. A. actually said. Not cake. could be wrong.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

Maybe, but would your solution (building underground, self sufficient cities to house *ALL* of humanity, build the pyramids to stir, build something to control the stirring, build something to make proper observations, and make sure you cooperate with all parts of the world without satellites and without the ability to walk on the surface) be less "Yikes"? I'm not sure.

 

Hmm. Just think. If we put all the world's military personnel on this. All the civil engineers. All the physicists. All the manufacturing facilities. All the rest of the world's work force. Seems to me they might be highly motivated to get the jobs done under budget, and ahead of schedule. Who says we don't have satellite communication? We will, and we will have back-up fiber optics too.

 

Ever gone spelunking? Most of the time you are walking ... Lol. BTW. We won't be precluded from surface travel ... it will juist require more and more specialized vehicles. Ever driven on ice before? Got studded tires?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

You would get all the above on the Earth too. Those are problems you need to solve either way. By the time we get to Alpha, the Earth won't be "good planet" to land on either.

 

I wrote:

And again ... what if we get to Alpha ... nearly dead from lack of water ... horribly mutated from radiation ... and low on every resource .... and there's NO good planet to land on? What do we do then? I'm thinking ... die.

 

Moo wrote:

 

You would get all the above on the Earth too. Those are problems you need to solve either way. By the time we get to Alpha, the Earth won't be "good planet" to land on either.

 

Oh so wrong. In fact, it would be better than when we began the journey. You think we hit the 'go' button, then crawl into our caves until we get there? Not a chance. We will all keep doing what we have been doing. Improving our habitations. Improving our technologies. Our EVERYTHING.

 

Once the initial fear subsides ... and we are well on our way .... humanity will drift back to killing each other pretty much like we always have done. There will be wars. Squabbles big and small. But we will easily adapt as a species to living underground. Very easily.

 

And whatever problems do arise, we have a whole planetful of willing workers. When we get to Alpha, the problem will be getting people to go back to the surface. The underground life will be the 'norm'. But it will happen in time ... especially when people keep coming down and telling everyone how beautifully rugged the earth is. There will be the hardy ones who want to live topside. And when we heat earth back up .... we will have plenty of atmosphere again. Landscape will have changed, of course ... but it will be a brand new world to explore, and enjoy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

I think you're guessing that the Earth will "resurrect" after reaching Alpha centauri. That's not quite how things work. I don't see how Earth will regain atmosphere after it being lost for an entire trip for 4.3 light years.

The Earth won't just be "unrecognizeable" it would stop being habitable. Unless we "terraform" it, that would be permanent.

 

Since we're talking about science fiction, you could invent a technology that "reignites" the atmosphere (hence, terraforms the planet) but without it, it isn't going to happen.

 

Moo, the only way we could 'lose our atmosphere' would be if we lost our gravity. It's not like it's going to be stripped from us. We will lose a little from our thrusters, but not much. A little more from impacters, but we are going to be accumulating mass the whole trip. We will place our lovely little planet in a perfect orbit that heats us up to just the right temp. We can control this. If we need to adjust, we will have the ability to do so.

 

And you say 'it' won't be habitable. You mean the wonderful cities we have underground? ?????? Lol. The Earth will have a fresh 'skin'. Glacial action will have rearranged everything. But the new sun will heat us up. The oceans will get all toasty again. It will be quite spectacular. Sure it won't happen overnight ... but it will happen quickly ... relatively speaking.

 

We will be out there planting stuff like mad. Letting animals loose. Birds. We will have retained genetic samples of species that died out, and re-birth them. Ever seen a salmon hatchery? Insects will do just fine, too. )

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

If you mean trying to take the entire planet for a ride, no, I don't think there's a point in trying because I think there are more viable solutions.

 

If we take our planet we live. Most of us. If we send a few in ships, it is extremely likely they don't survive the journey. And the rest of us died while the happy space farers were halfway across the gulf. What do you think it would do to their collective psyches to know that they abandoned the rest of humanity?

 

And it is extremely likely they will not find a planet they can just immediately exploit. They will remain stuck in ships that are falling apart at the seams. Out of food. Out of air. Out of water. The odds of none of these scenarios coming true are ridiculously small.

 

Ships suck. You have grown up thinking they are cool. They are. If you are a machine that can't 'die'. Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

Woah, we're talking MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH MUCHMUCH stronger force, here, pywakit.

 

There will definitely be Geological implications, and I am quite certain we can calculate them. I did that with my professor in terms of tidal forces -- and those are tiiiiny compared to what it would take to increase our velocity and get us out of orbit around the sun.

 

You are incorrect, I believe. We don't need to leave the solar system in 1 or 2 orbits. If we have a 200 year 'heads up', and if we get it all done in say 50 years then we could take 150 orbits ( or more) to climb out of the solar system. Piece of cake ... Yes. Tidal forces. Not that big, though. We are not 'accelerating' in such a manner that our planet is torn asunder.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

Cramped atmosphere underground, lack of sunlight, problem with ventilation and heat, reaction with chemicals underground, waste management (for the ENTIRE world, yes?) and taking care of the animals you want to keep down there.. and those are only problems off the top of my head. There are lots more.

 

Cramped? Why? Only one underground 'digger' for the whole planet? How sad. Couldn't figure out how to build more machines? Ever see how big that underground site is in Nevada? I think it's Nevada. For the spent uranium? We have cool technology that will assist us in picking geologically sound areas to create the underground cities. Ventilation? You are joking, right? How do all those skyscrapers in New York do it? Think they keep all the windows open? We will have plants. We will be piping oxygen down. We will have a/c going to keep us cool. Carbon dioxide scrubbers.

 

What chemicals? You mean the ones we live with every day, anyway? Awww. Poor baby. The animals will be just fine. We will recycle like mad. Very little will go to waste.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Battlestar Galactica is cool.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo wrote:

 

I might be a pessimistic hardass

Yes. You are. Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am not sure that the energy from all the hydrogen on Earth will suffice to move the Earth and keep it warm enough to Alpha Centauri (for reasonable amount of time). Distances in space are really huge.

 

I am not concerned with 'keeping it warm'. It's own core temp is going to last an awfully long time. There is much going on inside Earth to keep the heat on.

 

However, I you may be right about moving Earth. Want to figure out how much hydrogen it would take ... applied in the manner I have described ... to double our current velocity? And a rough guess as to how long it would take to do it?

 

Remember, we are doing this just like ion drive. Very little thrust. Just very steadily applied.

 

If we are on the planet, we can take as long as we need to get to Alpha. The most fuel efficient route ... If it took a few hundred ... or even a thousand years, that's fine.

Edited December 27, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

I have never tried to calculate it. I couldn't if I wanted to. I describe it as a castoff from 2 colliding stars. 3x Jupiter's diameter, and comprised entirely of iron and nickel ... the nickel being the outer layer. It is lighter, isn't it? Gravity has crushed it to a near perfect sphere. It's atmosphere ( if it has any ) would be about a billionth of a meter in thickness.

 

My sincere apologies for not having the skills to calculate its mass.

 

Mass is far far far far more important in astrophysics than size.

 

A quick, dirty and WRONG calculation of the mass of the rogue, this will under estimate by a substantial way.

 

Volume of Jupiter = 1.22447786 × 10²⁵m^3

Volume of Rogue = 3.30609022 × 10²⁶m^3

 

Density of Juipiter = 1.4 * density of water = 1400 kg/m^3

Desnity of Iron (this is the bit that is an underestimate due to compression) = 7874 kg/m^3

 

So we can assume that the mass of the Roague is about 20 times that of Juipiter.

 

Very massive, it will have a VERY dense atmosphere, and it will pick it up as it travels through space

 

Anyway, this object does not contain the correct chemicals to radiate anything but infrared. It does not have the mass to collapse further. My offhand guess is it actually exceeds the sun's mass. Maybe several times the sun's mass.

 

It is tiny compared to the mass of the sun, so it'll have little influence on it. BUT it is large enough to collapse and start radiationg, even if only as a brown dwarf, it will have enough helium and hydrogen because it has travelled a long way and will pick them up on the way, whether this is actually in high enough quantities to cause the neuclear core is difficult to say, but it has enough mass by a long way.

 

If you want it more massive than the sun I'd suggest you look into the mass limit before blackhole callapse, and for that much iron you'd need more than two stars, stars really don't produce that much compared to their total mass.

 

My goal was to make it beautiful, mysterious, and deadly. And it had to be massive enough to take out our sun and give us no other reasonable alternative but to try moving Earth ...

 

I'd suggest not trying to make it apply to the laws of physics then, because it is frankly too complicated and probably not worth it. Mass is fundamentally important in astrophysics.

 

Incidentally, it was discovered ( of course ) entirely by accident. Rather traumatizing for the young astronomer at Mt. Palomar ....

 

So do you hate this too? Lol.

 

More to the point ... does this ( any of it ) violate physics?

 

Well, maybe Mooey still likes the idea.

 

 

 

[pywakit]

Klaynos wrote:

 

If you want it more massive than the sun I'd suggest you look into the mass limit before blackhole callapse, and for that much iron you'd need more than two stars, stars really don't produce that much compared to their total mass.

 

Lol. Very good. Shall I plead artistic license? It doesn't have to be more massive than the sun to cause a reaction big enough to vaporize the nearby planets, does it? One thing I didn't catch here was the release of kinetic energy. Or is it impossible for it to be moving at 220 kps? Or am I just not understanding how kinetic energy is released?

 

Klaynos wrote:

 

I'd suggest not trying to make it apply to the laws of physics then, because it is frankly too complicated and probably not worth it. Mass is fundamentally important in astrophysics.

 

Would a neutron star work better? What would it look like as it approached our solar system?

 

And are you telling me that if an object 20 times Jupiter's mass struck the sun at right angles to the sun's trajectory through the galactic arm ... coming in from the sun's north pole ... that this impact would simply be absorbed by the sun with little effect? Seems to defy logic. My logic, anyway.

 

Klaynos wrote:

 

Very massive, it will have a VERY dense atmosphere, and it will pick it up as it travels through space

 

My bad logic assumed the Rogue would either have sufficient internal heat to burn off any atoms of hydrogen/helium as they were picked up. Or ... if that doesn't work ... if this is possible ... another way to accomplish the 'visual' would be for the hydrogen/helium ( and other gases ) to be held in liquid form ( 99.999999999% transparent? ) so the mirrorized nickel surface would reflect the stars back to the observer. The desire is to have this massive object appear invisible against the backround of stars ... except for it's perimeter.

 

And thank you for the calculations. This is exactly the kind of help I need. It is my stated goal that all basic principles of physics be followed ... at least for the original story line. Later, it is acceptable to drift into physics 'theory' ... then later still ... fantasy.

 

The 2 most important things are 1. The sun takes a big enough hit to vaporize the nearby planets, and 2. It is possible within the laws of physics ( the mechanism and sufficient fuel supply for that mechanism ) to spiral away from our sun and toward Alpha.

 

Again, my more knowledgable friends, and my ex-NASA engineer neighbor told me that in 'theory' it is possible to move the Earth in this fashion. Are they all wrong? If you think that is true, then would you have an alternative way to move Earth out of the solar system? Within a 200 year time-frame? Or is it simply impossible? If you think it is impossible, please explain your reasoning.

 

I would prefer not to concede to Moo just yet. Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So my understanding of relative mass is way off. Hmm. Ok. The sun is roughly 1000 times Jupiter's mass. My Rogue is at minimum 20 times Jupiter's mass. That makes the sun at most 50 times the mass of the Rogue. If your calculations were a little more precise ( lol ) we could possibly pare that down some. Does not the Rogue's compression seriously alter your calculations? Is it possible that the Rogue could be as high as 50 times Jupiter's mass? If it could be that high ( within the bounds of physics ) then the sun would be about 20 times more massive. The kinetic energy released is still bothering me, too. But even at your low estimate, even at 1/50th of the sun's mass wouldn't the impact have serious consequences?

 

I guess I look at it like I look at impacters on Earth. Relatively small objects ( just a few meters in diameter ) travelling at much slower speeds ... say 16 kps ( around 58,000 kph ) cause some pretty serious reactions to our planet.

 

I also look at the damage done to Jupiter from very tiny ( comparatively ) and relatively slow impacts ( Shoemaker-Levy ). As I recall, the astrophysicists were very surprised at the effect on Jupiter. Didn't they expect significantly less damage?

 

When I compare the size ( mass ) of the S/L comet(s) to Jupiter, against the Rogue's mass to the sun's, it seems that the effect would be to ( at the very least ) cause a temporary expansion of the sun's outer atmosphere that would easily engulf the inner planets. Am I looking at this wrong? It would not surprise me if I was.

 

Furthermore, the new, more massive sun, once it settled back down, would have a seriously deleterious effect on all objects that were in orbit prior to the collision. True? And how much mass would it require for the sun to go 'nova'?

Edited December 27, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[pywakit]

To everyone who has participated ... I hope 2010 is a satisfying, and productive year for you.

 

Thank you for being so patient with me ...

[Sisyphus]

Wow. You seem to be kind of angry about this. Sorry to upset you. It's not my fault our sun is going to blow up! Lol.

 

Ok. One thing at a time. I have no doubt your calculations are correct, but correct for what? Launching Earth like a rocket? Ion Drive ( Cassini? ) produces a nearly negligable thrust, but it is continuous. Are you suggesting that Earth's velocity can not be increased? We can apply that much 'force' against our planet, and NOTHING will happen?

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Isn't this a basic tenet of physics?

 

Hmmm. Exhaust. Well, hydrogen atoms will leave our pyramids at pretty extreme velocities. I am kind of hoping we will get a lot of them back. Don't really want to blow off our whole atmosphere. We are not fusing them into helium, thankfully.

 

Thrust per acceleration. Nope. Can you figure that out for me? As far as earthquakes go .... certainly we will cause them. Big ones. In fact, we just might lose an underground city or two. But maybe you didn't read the part about millions of sensors planted around ( and in ) the earth. Monitored in real time by computers, the pyramids would constantly be adjusting thrust to prevent causing total collapse of our crust.

 

And I am going to take a guess and say that our engineers will be doing their best to create suitable new 'building codes' for the underground cities. Don't we know how to make structures that can withstand serious earthquakes?

 

Why would I be upset about that? (Sorry if I gave that impression.) You asked if if it was acceptable, I showed that it wasn't. The calculation is for the difference in between the Earth's current kinetic energy and the energy that it would have at the bare minimum velocity needed to escape the solar system. That is the absolute minimum energy you will need allowable by the laws of physics, whether it's added all at once (which would obviously kill everybody) or over thousands of years (which might still kill everybody, I don't have enough info). What methods you employ can't get around that, they can only approach it as a 100% efficient goal.

 

I didn't say you can't change the Earth's velocity. Jumping in the air changes the Earth's velocity, and falling back down changes it back. Launching something on an escape orbit even changes it permanently. The question is changing it enough. And that's actually quite simple to calculate.

 

As for earthquakes, etc.: Certainly you can generate little enough thrust to not, say, shatter every continental plate (more than a building code issue). But how quickly do you want to accelerate? How much time does the Earth have to get out of the way? That will determine how much acceleration and thus how much thrust you need.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Sisyphus

[pywakit]

Thank you. Please forgive my attempts at humor. I was being facetious about the 'building codes' and other points, too.

 

When we talk about energy requirements to achieve escape velocity I am probably visualizing this all wrong. My understanding is if we were to increase our velocity ( and therefore angular momentum ) by even 5 meters per second, would we not ( assuming we don't run into something ) eventually 'drift' away from the sun? Perhaps this would take another million years to accomplish, but are the physics incorrect?

 

It would not be easy to calculate the thrust from all 3000 pyramids operating at max cap ( just under causing continental plate shifts ), but I think there is sufficient energy available in the ice caps and drawing on the oceans to steadily increase our velocity.

 

Even if we only increase the velocity ( accelerate ) in trillionths of a meter per second, if the thrust is continual, that increase will slowly add up to measurable change in orbital speed.

 

Leaving the solar system in a couple hundred years is not so important. That's just artistic license. ( In fact, in my actual story, it's done in far less time )

 

But I don't think it is accurate to say we would need more energy than the planet contains to move it away from the sun. And to Alpha.

[Sisyphus]

No, you increase the velocity by 5 meters per second, you're just going to have a very, very slightly larger and more eccentric orbit.

 

It's a question of kinetic and potential energy. You can convert one into the other readily enough, but you can't increase the sum of both without some kind of external source. The kinetic energy in this case comes from the Earth's velocity, specifically (1/2)mv^2, where m is the Earth's mass and v is it's velocity relative to the sun. The potential energy comes from the "height" in the gravity well of the sun. To throw a ball in the air, you give it velocity. This velocity is used up, and at the peak of its trajectory it stops, and it falls back down again and lands with a high velocity again. This is just converting velocity to height and back again, or kinetic to potential and back again. What's true of a ball in the Earth's gravity is exactly the same as the Earth in the Sun's gravity. To get it to move further away, you need to add energy.

 

Now, the amount of energy needed to gain height decreases the farther away you are, because the strength of the gravitational field decreases. In fact, there is only a finite amount of energy needed to escape completely. That's what I calculated, minus the kinetic and potential energy the Earth already has. And we come up short by 900 billion times the annual energy usage of human beings.

[pywakit]

Yes, I was aware that the farther we get from the sun the less gravitational attraction. I had counted on this to reduce energy requirements for escape velocity.

 

I am still thinking we are talking at cross-purposes. We are not increasing the orbital velocity by a fixed number then remaining at that velocity. This is the same as ion drive. The force is applied continually for many years, with our speed always increasing.

 

So maybe you could calculate the total energy contained in 7 million cubic miles of ice. And throw in 7 million cubic miles of ocean water just for fun ....

 

Would this number be less than 900B times out total energy output in 2008? If it is, then we will need to use more water. Lol.

[Klaynos]

I don't have much time at the moment... but what I'd suggest doing is working out the momentum of an object with a mass of 20 Jupiter masses moving at a high speed relative to the sun, and then working out how much impact that would have on something 1047 Jupiter masses.

 

You also need some method to accelerate the rogue out of it's starting environment. That will be the limiting factor on the speed.

[pywakit]

If only I was a real scientist! Lol. Klaynos, you know I lack the ability to do that kind of math. I am so ashamed.

 

As to the second part, my mechanism is the released kinetic energy ( extreme angular momentum from spin + combined relative motion + chemical reaction ) of 2 massive stars ( neutron? need lots of iron and nickel ) colliding at galactic velocities.

 

Just a fluke, really. The 'debris' from the impact is given further angular momentum in the same manner that we use to accelerate our space probes. But using stars instead of planets.

 

Of course, you would know if these mechanisms are inadequate ....

 

When I conceived this scenario, ( which was scoffed at by my science minded co-workers, I might add ) it was believed that all planets ( objects with planetary mass ) would be in orbit around a star. I was quite excited when a year later astronomers announced the detection of possible rogues.

Edited January 2, 2010 by pywakit

[bascule]

Don't worry about any of that. You could keep the Earth plenty warm with the same magic infinite energy source you use to move it in the first place.

 

It doesn't need to be infinite... just build a Dyson Sphere around the Sun then send the energy to earth in an ultraconcentrated beam... problem solved. After that you just need an unobtanium receiver dish to convert that super intense beam back to useful energy.

[pywakit]

It doesn't need to be infinite... just build a Dyson Sphere around the Sun then send the energy to earth in an ultraconcentrated beam... problem solved. After that you just need an unobtanium receiver dish to convert that super intense beam back to useful energy.

 

You would mock an original story that 'could' potentially, hypothetically, SOMEDAY replace the 'Star Trek', and 'Star Wars' franchises?

 

Lol. It's cool. But I must say, the compliments for original thought are few and far between. ( thanks to those that have ... )

 

Can't help but notice the 'genius' rating next to your name. Surely you could come up with something more amusing than "unobtanium".

 

Hmmm.

 

But, in fairness ... it was at least mildly amusing ....

[michel123456]

You would mock an original story that 'could' potentially, hypothetically, SOMEDAY replace the 'Star Trek', and 'Star Wars' franchises?

 

You'll have to rewrite your script so it fits in a few days or years.

[pywakit]

You'll have to rewrite your script so it fits in a few days or years.

 

Lol. Michel, I don't think a 'few days' or even a few years would be workable. On the other hand we have many examples of very successful series that draw us in by the underlying premise. "Outer Limits" ... "Twilight Zone" to name just two. Earth/Alpha could be a 'hybrid' where we grow attached to certain characters over the course of the season, but each year there will be new characters.

 

And there are many ways to maintain continuity beyond 'characters'. Each season could carry multiple programs and story lines ( several individual yet interrelated shows ) again, with new characters each year on each seperate plot line. When you have a whole planet involved, in one fashion or another, it would be hard to run out of interesting avenues to explore.

 

I have never finished the script, so sadly it is a moot point anyway. Know any good screenwriters? I don't and it's not like I haven't looked for one ....

[mooeypoo]

Yes, and pywakit, notice that both "Twilight Zone" and the "Outer Limits" might've been playing on some scientific concepts but neither of them was truly scientific, nor did they truly follow the laws of physics.

 

My point is that the discussion of whether or not your idea is physically realistic should be separate from the discussion of whether or not it can be commercially successful.

[Sisyphus]

I think if the writers of Star Wars or Star Trek claimed they were "doing it all with [real] physics," they would be mocked much more heartily than anyone is mocking you here.

[mooeypoo]

I think if the writers of Star Wars or Star Trek claimed they were "doing it all with [real] physics," they would be mocked much more heartily than anyone is mocking you here.

Yeah I agree, they tried to make things as close as they possibly can to actual physics but they don't pretend to follow actual physics all the way, which, btw, gives the fans tons to talk about.

 

Personally, I love star trek (I'm not the star wars type, though) but the small things - like the fact the ship makes a sound in space, or that they have artificial gravity even when the ship's systems are all dead, damaged and almost-gone, etc - are fun to discuss and analyze and hypothesize better cinematic solutions for, but they don't take away from my enjoyment of the show.

 

In the end, it's a TV show, not a documentary. The fact the writers TRY to insert as many physical-phenomena they can into it and the great plot stories makes it cool enough for me to forgive the bad science.

[Sisyphus]

Hey, I like Star Trek, too, but it's much more than just little things. The way Star Trek spaceships operate and travel and fight much more closely resembles 18th century sailing ships than anything actually in space, let alone 24th century (or whatever) tech. Or how almost every planet is apparently the size of a small town. Or how the technology of pockets has been inexplicably lost. But that's fine. It's fantasy.

[mooeypoo]

Hey, I like Star Trek, too, but it's much more than just little things. The way Star Trek spaceships operate and travel and fight much more closely resembles 18th century sailing ships than anything actually in space, let alone 24th century (or whatever) tech. Or how almost every planet is apparently the size of a small town. Or how the technology of pockets has been inexplicably lost. But that's fine. It's fantasy.

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, and it's not just pockets that they forget, it's going to the bathroom, too -- that's one of the longest joke going around the startrek fan sites, the fact that in none of the episodes did anyone EVER go to the bathroom. Or needed to.

 

I agree. It's still fun to discuss these things, though.

 

And I think that the things that do have some shred of truth to them (like how would a supernovae look like up-close) are fascinating enough to get people interested in space which is, on its own, a great result.

 

Startrek is partly what got me into astrophysics to begin with (as a child, before I knew what is realistic and what isn't).

[pywakit]

OK! THAT TEARS IT! *takes off gauntlet and slaps everyone ... HARD*

 

Lol. Just kidding ... sort of. Thank you all for your OPINIONS regarding Earth/Alpha's viability as a TV show. Yes, I think it would be fun, too.

 

Now let's get serious. I listed a host of reasonable, rational, and logical SCIENCE-backed reasons why SHIPS to Alpha won't cut it. I am not going to repeat them all, but the fact is, none of you ever addressed ANY of them in any specific terms. So that is one rather gaping deficiency on your parts.

 

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.

 

In short, my new friends, I have easily debunked the myth ( SCIENTIFICALLY ) that ships are a viable method for saving our species if our sun were to undergo a sudden catastrophic change.

 

Now it's your turn. Use science to PROVE my methods can't work. Maybe I am dead wrong about this. But I won't know unless you prove it.

 

As with all my ideas, this one was not conceived in a vacuum. I very carefully considered every possible aspect I could. I have discussed it with a couple of people who are much more knowledgable in physics than I. They said it was possible. They said it did not violate physics.

 

So fine. It's a fun story. Now show me scientifically why it won't work ...

 

And don't yell at me ..... Lol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moo writes:

 

Yes, and pywakit, notice that both "Twilight Zone" and the "Outer Limits" might've been playing on some scientific concepts but neither of them was truly scientific, nor did they truly follow the laws of physics.

 

My point is that the discussion of whether or not your idea is physically realistic should be separate from the discussion of whether or not it can be commercially successful.

 

Yes Moo. Those series did not follow physics. Never said they did. You missed the point. The point was they were based on a theme, but had different characters for each new episode. So they were THEME driven as opposed to CHARACTER driven. So it's not necessary to accomplish all this with ONE cast of characters in 5 minutes, a few days, or a few years, which was Michel's suggestion.

 

As for your second point, I am in full agreement. This is "SPECULATIONS". So let's use science to figure out if it is physically realistic.

 

)