Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Normal isn't your first language, is it?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Alter earth's orbit

This requires math I cannot do
(+1, -1)
  [vote for,

I Believe the earth is getting warmer do to global warming. Unfortunately, I don't think that current cultures will ever consume less energy than they do now. And that energy will come from burning fossil fuels, in till they are depleted. So the problem will compound itself unless action is taken to alleviate it.

My plan, and here's the crazy, is to alter earths orbit so that it does so further away from the sun. To accomplish this, I present my idea. The earth will need a force exerted on it in order to alter its orbit. The force will be gravitational. The moon exerts a gravitational force on the earth (tides) and the earth exerts a force on the moon (moon orbit). My plan is to detonate a super-sized atomic explosion on or very close to the surface of the moon. This force will push the moon away from the earth. It is important to note the position of the earth, moon and explosion. The explosion would occur precisely between the earth and moon. The moon would be exactly behind the earth during the next lunar eclipse. After the explosion, the force is transmitted to the moon altering its orbit around the earth. The resulting gravitational pull would, in theory, pull the earth away from the sun. I do not know how long it would take the moons orbit to fully recover. I do not know how long it would take the earth's orbit to recover. Not sure of anything in this idea, but it works in my head.

evilpenguin, Jan 13 2013

Another way to do it http://www.goodread...A_World_Out_of_Time
In this story Neptune is turned into a big fusion-powered rocket (the gas giant planet is mostly fuel, see?), and its gravitational field is 10 times that of Earth, plenty to pull the Earth to a different orbit. [Vernon, Jan 13 2013]

XKCD: What if? http://what-if.xkcd.com/26/
[hippo, Jan 14 2013]

Schlock Mercenary http://www.schlockm...nary.com/2003-08-03
Details of how to move a gas giant, as per Vernon's link. (Text below the comic) [MechE, Jan 14 2013]

The Math https://www.uwgb.ed...eudosc/flipaxis.htm
[Brian the Painter, Jan 16 2013]

Put your politics here http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/
not in HB idiots [Brian the Painter, Jan 16 2013]


       // Not sure of anything in this idea//   

       I am pretty sure this idea has been widely mooted, both here and elsewhere.   

       However, if you find someone who can do the required maths (not just math - we need a lot more than one math here), you will find that in order to move the Earth even a tad further from the sun would require many orders of magnitude more nuclear weapons than have ever been built.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 13 2013

       A perceptible change in the orbit of the Earth (meaning a fraction of a percent in orbital radius) is going to need something on the order of 10^30 Joules.   

       The biggest nuclear warheads might have a yield of around 10^18 Joules.   

       Thus, even if all the energy winds up in a changed orbit (which it won't - your scheme is equivalent to putting a fan on a sailboat), you would need something like 1000,000,000,000 of the largest nuclear warheads ever made.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 13 2013

       //going to need something on the order of 10^30 Joules.
The biggest nuclear warheads might have a yield of around 10^18 Joules.//

       Then you'd only need 2 shirley?
pocmloc, Jan 13 2013

       We're not giving you the hammer until you bring our hedgecutters back.
8th of 7, Jan 13 2013

       I didn't actually read the idea. Why are we doing it this time?
Alterother, Jan 14 2013

       Because we can. And to get the Earth farther away from the sun, to reduce global warming.   

       However, the proposal is to actually move the moon, for reasons not explained in the idea, so it doesn't make a lot of sense even if you do read it.   

       Earth already receives a varying amount of electromagnetic radiation from the sun, as its distance from the sun varies between 147 million kilometres and 152 million km. Let's average it at 150M km ( 1 AU) and call the amount of energy Earth receives 1 Solar Constant.   

       The circumference of Earth's orbit is about 943,000,000 km, on that basis. Earth's diameter (12,756km) is therefore 0.000,013,534,536 of the total orbit distance.   

       To appreciably reduce the heating effect of the sun on Earth you would have to move Earth a couple of million kilometres away from the Sun. This would take a lot more energy than it's possible to produce on Earth without turning the whole planet into a smoking cinder, unless you are prepared to take a very long time.   

       I'd be looking at ways to increase Earth's albedo first... much quicker and easier.
UnaBubba, Jan 14 2013

       @Alterother// LOL Never mind, just look busy, God's on his way over.
Brian the Painter, Jan 14 2013

       To get a feeling for the magnitude of the forces needed for this, have a look at XKCD's analysis of how the Earth's rotation could be fractionally speeded up, which is an analagous problem (see link).
hippo, Jan 14 2013

       The Earth is the biggest thing in the world; only the second biggest thing in the world has a chance at moving the Earth; therefore the Sea.   

       What if the Earth the Sea and the Atmosphere all separated into big blobs floating through space that would be cool.   

       If the mass of the Earth was significantly reduced by launching the Sea blob as a jet of steam towards the moon where the moon gravity would accumulate it into a massive ocean then the Earth's orbit would likely become rounder, and as the column of steam condenses and travels through space arc submarine trawler rocketships carrying sea life would wait to splash down.
rcarty, Jan 14 2013

       //a jet of steam// sp. "massive, catastrophic ice meteor"
hippo, Jan 14 2013

       Couldn't all this be more easily achieved by just slicing a chunk off of the sun?
DrBob, Jan 14 2013

       Did this orbit just trigger a [UB] siting?
xandram, Jan 14 2013

       The conventionally accepted way of moving planets is to throw many asteroids past the Earth in a slingshot maneuver and then have them do another slingshot past Jupiter to get back. Accelerating Earth ultimately slows Jupiter.   

       Takes little man-made energy and many thousands of years.
Kansan101, Jan 14 2013

       [UB] I'm honored to receive your anayalsis.   

       //However, the proposal is to actually move the moon, for reasons not explained in the idea, so it doesn't make a lot of sense even if you do read it.//   

       Basically I want to exert a force on the earth. I was planning on using the gravatational force of the moon to pull the earth. I figured by moving the moon, the earth would follow, and I realize the total movement would be minuscule. The force would be provided by a massive atomic explosion. And assuming this would be a global effort, nobody would want this explosion to occur on or very close to the surface of the EARTH. So the closest, most massive object we have at our disposal would be the moon. Move the moon. Hope this explains why...
evilpenguin, Jan 14 2013

       This idea may lack basic mathematics, but at least the physics is unfeasible.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 14 2013

       The above marked-for-tagline.
normzone, Jan 14 2013

       //precisely between the earth and moon//   

       With a bit of an offset you can manage it such that the Moon just grazes the Earth, tanking the crust into the mantle a bit more with each pass, instead of simply coldcocking the planet dead center on the first rebound.
FlyingToaster, Jan 14 2013

       [FlyingToaster] //simply coldcocking the planet dead center on the first rebound//   

       Well I wasn't thinking it the moon would move that much, but that is hilarious. No, I assumed that if the plan were inacted the figures would be in place to avoid lunar armageddon
evilpenguin, Jan 15 2013

       Now [bellauk65], that was totally uncalled for. There are many more countries I can think of where to latch the buckytube which would bring many more benefits to Earth as a whole (and add a hole in it too). I will not mention said countries so as not to turn this into a political discussion.
PauloSargaco, Jan 15 2013

       Oh, and fishbone. Not only is Earth's orbit fine as it is, as changing it would probably bring many more problems than solutions.
PauloSargaco, Jan 15 2013

       Why not look at this from an alternative angle, and simply move the sun away from the earth?   

       All you'd have to do is build a huge toroidal magnet and put it in orbit around the sun. The sun's charged plasma would then be funnelled through the magnet and the resulting jet directed such that the sun would be propelled in the opposite direction. It might take a while.
zen_tom, Jan 15 2013

       So Max, was mathematics your best subject in primary school, or were mathematics your best subjects in primary school?   

       Math as a collective noun without the 's' is considered correct in the States.   

       And just for good measure of argument with the limeys, it's zee, not zed. It's more consistent with the rest of the alphabet, and the song rhymes better that way. You don't say 'ped' or 'ved,' do you?
RayfordSteele, Jan 15 2013

       //Not only is Earth's orbit fine as it is, as changing it would probably bring many more problems than solutions//. What problems?
evilpenguin, Jan 15 2013

       Gee, [evilpenguin], I don't know, maybe an Ice Age way before it's time? Maybe collision with a giant asteroid which is not on our current path? Maybe the extinction of even more animals and plants at an even faster rate? Maybe pissing off some alien species which has plans for the new Earth flight corridor? Can you really predict the exact results of changing something as terminally important as the path of a planet?
PauloSargaco, Jan 15 2013

       //Can you really predict the exact results of changing something as terminally important as the path of a planet?//   

       I think that, obviously, people would carefully weigh the positives with the negatives and act wisely.   

       It is extremely likely that CO2 will cause the Earth to warm up and cause many foreseeable problems and benefits, as well as many unforeseeable problems and benefits.   

       Which brings me to an interesting dilemma: What if the unforeseen benefits of global warming outweigh the problems caused by it?
Kansan101, Jan 15 2013

       // I think that, obviously, people would carefully weigh the positives with the negatives and act wisely //   

       Obviously? Really?! I admire your faith in the wisdom of Humanity.
PauloSargaco, Jan 15 2013

       thanks 101...
evilpenguin, Jan 15 2013

       //Obviously? Really?! I admire your faith in the wisdom of Humanity. — PauloSargaco//   

       It is hard to think of a massive endeavor that was completely unwise, if you look at it from the perspective of the person who decided upon it.   

       Let's say, for example, that you think that the invasion of Iraq was unwise. Well it was not- it got the guy who did it reelected, for example. Probably made some money for it too.   

       Now, if someone lived on the Earth, and decided to move it....there would be a compelling reason.
Kansan101, Jan 15 2013

       Well said Kansan. Your right.
Brian the Painter, Jan 15 2013

       Just use a PID control to detonate nukes until everybody feels comfortable with the Earth temperature. Only use the opinion of equator latitude inhabitants as feedback to avoid oscillations.
piluso, Jan 16 2013

       Well, [Rayford], if US "English" is so correct why don't you have Airbics instead of aerobics, Airnautical vs aeronautical, Airsol cans, Airdynamics, etc.? After all, you call aeroplanes airplanes.
UnaBubba, Jan 16 2013

       I just did the math, and it's not possible
Brian the Painter, Jan 16 2013

       It's possible, but not feasible. Planets already move in their orbits, and slow down in their rotation. Earth is gradually getting closer to the sun and its rotation is slowing.   

       Certainly possible to escape a star's gravity. It would happen if the Sun were to lose a little mass.
UnaBubba, Jan 16 2013

       Now were talking, get out your straw, drink a little sun.   

       No check the math. loosing 1/500 the mass of earth would move us 100k out. I don't think that would cool us down much because we're already 149,600,000 km out and that's not helping.
Brian the Painter, Jan 16 2013

       NOOOO....If you turn the earth inside out My GPS wont work!
Brian the Painter, Jan 16 2013

       We cool down during aphelion periods. It would work.
UnaBubba, Jan 16 2013

       Honestly [Kansan101], your examples of the wisdom of Humanity are the second Iraq war and Bush's reelection?! I will not go into that discussion, because, as I said, this is not the forum. I'll just suggest you provide us with better examples.
PauloSargaco, Jan 16 2013

       //Honestly [Kansan101], your examples of the wisdom of Humanity are the second Iraq war and Bush's reelection?! I will not go into that discussion, because, as I said, this is not the forum. I'll just suggest you provide us with better examples. — PauloSargaco//   

       I think you misunderstand my point in providing that example.   

       I think the invasion of Iraq was the most idiotic thing the United States ever did.   

       But for Bush, it was a good move. Got him reelected, helped out his buddies in various companies. From his perspective, it was wise.   

       Assuming that the decider is on the Earth, you can bet that they too will at the very least wisely look after their own self-interest, in deciding whether or not to move it. It's what people mostly do.
Kansan101, Jan 16 2013

       Firstly, both The Moon and The Earth would need to be accelerated together, otherwise one would get left behind...   

       Secondly, I would need to work more days per year?   

       Thirdly, the 2nd amendment should add: "...regardless of orbit".
Ling, Jan 16 2013

       [UB], if you're going to try and make an argument for the superior systematic consistency of UK English as the more well-polished turd, there's really nothing I can say except that the French also make similar sorts of squawking about their linguistic whimperings.
RayfordSteele, Jan 16 2013

       [K101], hmm, I understand your reasoning but, I hope you'll forgive me for disagreeing, the Bush re-election example doesn't make me feel very comfortable regarding the wisdom of the Powers That Be. Arguing that Bush had the objective of being re-elected and that that war helped him achieve that objective is not far from using a ship to ram a submarine, wrecking both in the process, jumping into a life-raft with a handful of personnel from the boat and calling it a victory (no, the US didn't go down with Iraq, only a few thousand of it's troops died or got crippled). So, if that same kind of wisdom was to be followed in the Earth orbit change solution (and assuming it was possible), we could expect that a small part of the world would see it's problem solved while the rest of the world would suffer miserably. The prospect doesn't really make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
PauloSargaco, Jan 16 2013

       Damn b the p, great link.   

       Mr.sargaco, let it go. This is simply a crude theory on how to fix a problem. Not a campaign to initiate a process. Although, if this idea were every enacted in any form I would want all royalty rights and some kind of recognition given jutta and the bakery.
evilpenguin, Jan 16 2013

       I didn't suggest it was the more well-polished turd. It is an older turd though.
UnaBubba, Jan 16 2013

       Gee Brian, did you use the word "polite"? We have different notions of what polite means, I guess.   

       Meanwhile, I've been informed that it is ok to call people idiots in HalfBakery. No point in repeating offense, this would just get boring. So I'm trying something different. Not original, mind you, but let's try it anyway, see if it's still below HB's rejection threshold. Are you ready? Ok then, here it goes: Why don't you shove your link where the sun doesn't shine?   

       There, I feel so much better now. I'll be waiting for your next offensive remark, this really contributes to an enlightening conversation. I'm eager to drink from the fountain of knowledge that you certainly are. I mean, someone so fast to assume other people's ignorance surely must be a genius. And probably a bit smug too.
PauloSargaco, Jan 17 2013

       The principle has been proposed for moving asteroids, albeit with Solar Sail instead of the Moon.
Inyuki, Jan 17 2013

       Why not build a very (I mean very, very) big rocket on the moon. This rocket would be fired for brief periods when Earth eclipses the Moon.   

       With this process we could get the Moon's gravitational pull that we wanted, but with a gentler motion. This would allow for less problematic tide changes.
PauloSargaco, Jan 17 2013

       Sargaco, I'm about to delete all of your comments. You are fighting on the internet, which is never an intelligent or fruitful endeavor. Please calm down or you will be erased from this conversation. Turn your passion into an intelligent argument.   

       Im not saying you don't have a point, but your presentation is offensive and annoying
evilpenguin, Jan 17 2013

       do what you will, but I suggest you follow a balanced approach.
PauloSargaco, Jan 17 2013


       Understand that this community that has a long history--most bakers know eachother's styles, many have met, most consider themselves friends, and often good friends and colleagues at that.   

       Petty insults don't play well here. You've stumbled upon a corner of the Internet that raises itself above that level. We're either elitist pricks or uncommonly decent that way.
RayfordSteele, Jan 17 2013

       Okay, Mr.Sargaco, I see your point //do what you will, but I suggest you follow a balanced approach.//   

       I deleted your vulgar comment about Brian the painters mother because it doesn't belong here on the bakery. It was a quick lash back to being called a "retard". Im not of the political correctness persuasion that thinks this word is extremely offensive. I do think that it has no place here.   

       Brian, please edit your comment. The bakery, for whatever reason, has its standards. In addition, please refrain from using texting acronyms such as j/k, lol, omg, etc... And one more thing Brian, if the conversation goes off tangentially it really does not matter. Usually the poster of the idea will try and steer it back on course. I personally didn't care. Just like how I'm now talking about bakery edicate instead of my idea.
evilpenguin, Jan 17 2013

       sorry for using texting acronyms
Brian the Painter, Jan 17 2013

MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 17 2013

       I should fucking hope so, twat.
UnaBubba, Jan 17 2013

       //max// ?
Brian the Painter, Jan 17 2013

MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 17 2013

       i get it. Not a common word here. sp IFHSC
Brian the Painter, Jan 17 2013

UnaBubba, Jan 17 2013


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle