NASA Aims To Move the Earth!!!!

Originally posted by TG
I think firing comets into the earth would be dangerous. Would it not be a lot safer to build a massive magnet and put it into space and allow the earth to be pulled towards it?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by TG]

Something similar to that would I think be more likely.

The whole point of the exercise though is really to demonstrate that it would be possible for a technologically advance race to physically change the orbit of their planet(s). And this should be borne in mind when looking for other inhabited solar systems.

What really amuses me is that a large percentage of posters that are calling this plan crazy and the NASA scientist’s crackpots can't even spell correctly.

Originally posted by jbondo
What really amuses me is that a large percentage of posters that are calling this plan crazy and the NASA scientist’s crackpots can't even spell correctly.

Your point being that because someone can't spell they can't see a duff idea when it comes along?

What really amuses me is that a large percentage of posters that are calling this plan crazy and the NASA scientist’s crackpots can't even spell correctly.

That would be "scientists".

I HIGHLY doubt this is true.

However, if it is, then it is STUPID. So what are they going to do when this NATURAL CYCLE of warming is done and the earth cools again ??? push us back towards the sun??

I don't believe this is true.

the worst part about this plan is that it would really screw up our calendar...

Originally posted by Mogget

What really amuses me is that a large percentage of posters that are calling this plan crazy and the NASA scientist’s crackpots can't even spell correctly.

That would be "scientists".

I removed that comma once from my Word editor and it put it right back in.

My point is that a NASA scientist should be given a little more credit than is being given here. The plan in question is just a theory and would not be considered for many, many years.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I HIGHLY doubt this is true.

However, if it is, then it is STUPID. So what are they going to do when this NATURAL CYCLE of warming is done and the earth cools again ??? push us back towards the sun??

I don't believe this is true.

It's 100% true.

But it's not something we're likely to be capable of doing in the next few thousand years, and besides we wouldn't need to do anything that soon as it has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming

VERY interesting find.

But - seems like using a nuke when a sling shot would do.

...Or is there something we are not being told?

Some of you make me afraid to share any ideas I might have. I mean the instant critizism and bashing is incredible. Is it a far-fetched idea? Sure it is, but you gotta still remember its just an idea. It is not a plan. I have always enjoyed these forums because of the way an idea or ideal is presented, and then most of the time well thought out and researched responses on both sides of the fence were presented. Do some research on what the bad effects of this would be and post them. Give an educated response. I dont much care to read things like someone posted about a fat group of americans came up with this. I speak for just myself though, perhaps others enjoy such things. Just my 2 pennies. Have a good day.

Aaron

Originally posted by Essan
Well, given that we have a few 1,000 million years before the Sun expands, there's not exactly any urgency

I actually think it's an ingenious plan that just might work. Obviously better for worlds which don't have a pesky moon to get in the way. Might be best to evacuate to Titan beforehand as well as I guess the actual process of moving may be a tad unpleasant.

Of course, building a giant tractor beam may prove easier in the long run.

I am sure I saw on a program said it heats up by 10degrees in millions or billion of years....cant remember cant find anything except a forum where someone posted in 1.5billion years earth temps be 30 fahrenhight higher.

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

THe earth will be destroyed before the sun dies or even close to it dieing as it be so hot it melt us.....toasting.

No offense to anybody... but does it not occur to ANYBODY that sending an asteroid at earth would cause something close to the effect of the extinction of all species on the earth... didnt this cause mass destruction before... like isnt this what they have been talking about avoiding... you know go out there build a giant gun so we can shoot down those big old asteroids with our 6 shooter... we have all seen the movie spin offs... but NOW they want to actually throw one of those at us... i guess bruce willis will be pretty disapointed he sacraficed his life blowing one up eh? As for those who would like to argue that they will use a comet instead of an asteroid... heres a tid bit... comets are generally made up of ice particles... thus why you get the lovely little comets tail... most of the time it would burn up in the atmosphere and in all reality probably wouldnt attain enough density to put a pock mark in the side of the earth... and to fire an asteroid at the earth... now we are talking about adding 6 billion years onto the earths general work lifespan ( I personally like how they make it sound like some sort of car warranty) unfortunatley in the process the majority of the poppulation will be dead... and out of curiosity where are we going to aim this lovely chunk of rock... obviously not the united states of america we cant have that... knowing the american government it would probably be somewhere around the middle east or china... i dont mean to attack anybodies post... but those scientists worry me just a smidge...

[edit on 22-9-2006 by newage2012]

I think that the plan is to use the gravity of comets and asteroids to accelerate the Earth into a higher orbit, not smash them into our planet !

Anyway, it's a futile exercise. The mass of a thousand comets couldn't appreciably affect the orbit of a planet the size of Earth.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by Mogget]

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Mogget]

Can someone tell me where NASA gets thinking they can make a decision for the ENTIRE globe?? and its population? Does it seem a little absurd to anyone else other than me? Dont you think there will be some sort of recoil from this from the worlds population.. I for one dont think I would just sit by and let this happen based on "IDEAS" and "Theories" from a bunch of scientists..

Originally posted by Ox
Can someone tell me where NASA gets thinking they can make a decision for the ENTIRE globe?? and its population? Does it seem a little absurd to anyone else other than me? Dont you think there will be some sort of recoil from this from the worlds population.. I for one dont think I would just sit by and let this happen based on "IDEAS" and "Theories" from a bunch of scientists..

when did they start thinking they could make a decision?

I thought it was just theory.

Think you getting a little over excited you think we were back in the time when we were hunting witches....here.

No the witch hunting is another thread.. with some country and war involved I dont know.. something like that..
But I'm just saying it seems like they have this notion that they can get away with this if they had to.. Im sorry I didnt mean to distort my point

The theory behind this idea is actually correct. We've been doing this sort of thing for probably 30 or 40 years. It's called a gravity assist manuver. The asteroid or whatever would speed up, we'd slow down. I can get you the math for it, it's pretty easy and just follows with Newton's Third Law (action/reaction). There are several problems with something like this. You have to apply the force at the right time or you'll make the planet colder for only a little while each year. You'd also have to do this several times to get a nice uniform orbit change like you want. We have nowhere near the technology needed to grab asteroids or comets and fling them in front of the earth on its orbit. The order of accuracy needed for the calculations is quite frankly insane.

I believe the Moon is in the earth's sphere of influence. I don't have the reference that tells me how big the radius of that sphere is, but I believe that the moon fell into that sphere. That would mean the earth exerts more force on it than the sun. Its too damn late to run the numbers at the moment and I don't feel like moving so maybe I'll run the numbers in the morning... maybe. I mean its m*mu/r^2... when r^2 is 93 million miles I'm guessing the earth has a significant advantage. Especially considering space is usually done in metric meaning you have to convert to kilometers so it gets bigger.

It's not the idea that I don't believe is true... it's that fact that everyone is bashing NASA without even knowing for sure if NASA actually said it. The original posters link is to some unknown website. People do this sort of thing to get hits on their website, and it seems to be working. Seriously you can't find ANYTHING about this claim anywhere other than from that web page. If you do, it will just be an exact copy with the same author's copyright on the bottom.

So before any of you bash NASA try to get some proof this is really from NASA..


On that note, this whole thing would NOT be possible without killing half of the Earth's life forms. Causing some sort of tsunamis or even puncturing our Earths crust and sending a large rain of molten magma in the air. It would be equivalent to nuclear fallout, and ash and dust in our atmosphere for a few years before it settles. I doubt NASA would ever consider this, when there is MUCH easier ways of escaping Earth and going to another planet.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]

You think it's some vague guy on a vague web page with a vague idea which is nowhere else on the web!!

I tend to disagree. Take a peek at this. Look at the guy, one of the scientists who've proposed this and then you can write to him too. You see, he's given his email address (At the bottom), so you may interact with him on this issue if you have a burning desire to do so.


Dr. Gregory Laughlin

Educational Background:

* B.A. Physics, University of Illinois
* Ph.D. Astronomy, University of California, Santa Cruz

Greg Laughlin's research interests are in theoretical astrophysics, with an emphasis on numerical simulations. Current areas of investigation include:

The dynamics of extrasolar planets.
The hydrodynamics of self-gravitating disks.
Stellar evolution.
The long-term evolution of the Universe.

Do you want to see the the interview with Don Korycansky, the other proponent of this idea? It's
here...

www.ucolick.org...
[email protected]

The theory behind this idea is actually correct.

The theory is correct, but you need something a lot more massive than a few comets to move the Earth anywhere.

I believe the Moon is in the earth's sphere of influence. I don't have the reference that tells me how big the radius of that sphere is, but I believe that the moon fell into that sphere. That would mean the earth exerts more force on it than the sun.

The Moon is indeed within the Earth's "sphere of influence". However, that doesn't mean that the Earth exerts a greater gravitational force on the Moon than the Sun does. After all, the entire Earth-Moon system is within the Sun's "sphere of influence".

I use a piece of software called Dance of the Planets on my PC, and the boundary of a planet's "sphere of influence" appears to be when the gravitational force acting on an approaching comet/asteroid/spacecraft exceeds 1 per cent that of the Sun. For the Earth, this amounts to roughly 1.5 million kms (Dance displays this distance in planet radii), which is around four times the distance of the Moon.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by Mogget]

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Mogget]