On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:51:39 PM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <c0e3fdd7-f973-455e...@googlegroups.com>,
> VSim <inte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >OK, I've had enough of all this besides-the-point nonsense. As if I
> >have time to read tons of useless posts and reply to each of them.
> >
> >It's very simple. If anybody considers themselves an expert who could
> >actually do some very heavy calculations, *and* wants to give it some
> >time talking to me seriously about it, and not with the pre-conceived
> >idea that I'm talking nonsense, then please first *read the details of
> >my plan from my web page, it's indicated at the begin of this
> >discussion*, and if you want to discuss it further then please tell me
> >so. But only if you're an actual expert.
> >
> >I'm not going to answer nor read any other posts on this thread. Have
> >fun discussing besides the point.
> And so dies the hope of a modern day Alexander Abian posting to
> rasfw.

This group seems to have slow trickle of people who pass through with
what they think are brilliant ideas, which we shoot down mercilessly.

pt

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> > what natural global warming do you think we have?
> > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
> The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.

We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
oscillations in between.

>Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows

It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.

>what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much human-induced.

None of it is natural. Without the human contribution the combined solar-volcanic effect would have cooled things
slightly, but negligibly.

You really don't know anything on this topic. I suggest some reading.

William Hyde

On 7/21/2023 2:48 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:51:39 PM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <c0e3fdd7-f973-455e...@googlegroups.com>,
>> VSim <inte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> OK, I've had enough of all this besides-the-point nonsense. As if I
>>> have time to read tons of useless posts and reply to each of them.
>>>
>>> It's very simple. If anybody considers themselves an expert who could
>>> actually do some very heavy calculations, *and* wants to give it some
>>> time talking to me seriously about it, and not with the pre-conceived
>>> idea that I'm talking nonsense, then please first *read the details of
>>> my plan from my web page, it's indicated at the begin of this
>>> discussion*, and if you want to discuss it further then please tell me
>>> so. But only if you're an actual expert.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to answer nor read any other posts on this thread. Have
>>> fun discussing besides the point.
>> And so dies the hope of a modern day Alexander Abian posting to
>> rasfw.
>
> This group seems to have slow trickle of people who pass through with
> what they think are brilliant ideas, which we shoot down mercilessly.
>
I prefer to think of it as "putting them out of their misery". So many
of them are so easy to shoot down because they were already on the
"heading for a crater" part of a ballistic trajectory. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 21/07/2023 22:18, VSim wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:28 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 20/07/2023 04:29, VSim wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
>>>>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
>>>>>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
>>>>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>>>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
>>>>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
>>>> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
>>>> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
>>>>
>>>> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
>>>>
>>>> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
>>>>
>>>> You figure out the energy involved in doing that
>>>
>>> As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
>>> And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
>>>
>> "Throwing out big numbers" is exactly the point. The laws of physics and
>> thermodynamics say what is possible to do and what it would take to do
>> it, and it seems you don't have an appreciation for what it would take
>> to do what you're saying - on a pure resource consumption level, let
>> alone developing the infrastructure and political will to achieve
>> something so unlike anything any human society has ever done before.
>>
>>
>> It seems like your mental image of this problem is that we need to nudge
>> these huge foam balls floating in space in our direction. Like a small
>> tugboat pulling a huge ship, it seems manageable because there is no
>> friction, right. Even if you can't move it a lot, a small amount of
>> acceleration in the right direction is enough to make it move in the
>> right direction and then it kind of takes care of itself.
>>
>>
>> The two issues are 1) these aren't huge foam balls or a large ship,
>> they're planetary bodies within two order of magnitudes of our own
>> planet in size. It's hard to picture how big that is because we can't
>> even picture how big *our* planet is BECAUSE IT'S SO BIG, but it's big.
>> And 2) while there is no friction in space to oppose movement, all those
>> planetary bodies are subject to gravitational forces that do.
>>
>>
>> Now, it's been too long since I've done maths and physics to actually do
>> the maths for you but I can try and find numbers that can help our
>> intuitions. First, in terms of mass it seems that Europa or Io are the
>> only ones of Jupiter's moons that are in our ballpark, with about
>> 9x10^22 kg to the Moon's 7 for Io and 4x10^22 for Europa. Io is about
>> 420 000 km from Jupiter, only a bit more than the 380 000 km the Moon is
>> from the Earth, and Europa is further at 670 000 km from Jupiter. All
>> the other moons are bigger (Callisto and Ganymede) or so many orders of
>> magnitudes smaller that you'd need millions to get the mass you want.
>>
>>
>> (already things are starting pretty badly because I can already say the
>> political will for destroying Io or Europa, of all moons in the Solar
>> System, will be nil).
>>
>>
>> Anyway, the distance from Jupiter tells you how much energy they'll need
>> to get out of Jupiter's orbit. Earth's mass is about 6x10^24 kg while
>> Jupiter's is about 500x that. While I can no longer do the math, I
>> *think* it should mean that at from an equal starting distance it should
>> take about 500x more energy to leave Jupiter's orbit than Earth's (I
>> checked equations, yes it seems energy should scale linearly with mass
>> and inversely with distance).
>>
>>
>> In other words, it would take 500 times more energy to pull Io from
>> Jupiter's orbit than it would take to pull the Moon from Earth's orbit,
>> and with smaller, further Europe it would merely take a modest 100 times
>> more energy to achieve that goal.
>>
>>
>> OK so pulling the Moon from Earth's orbit is also pretty hard to
>> picture, but unlike Io and Europa we have some concrete examples of
>> interacting with it. So here are some questions for you:
>>
>>
>> * By how much did the Apollo landers push the Moon when they landed on
>> it, do you think? Did they appreciably impact its orbit or was their
>> impact about as negligeable as that of you jumping on the couch ?
>>
>>
>> * For that matter, would you say that the total number of spaceships
>> that crashed into the Moon since the dawn of the space age had a
>> noticeable impact on its orbit or nah?
>>
>> * While we're at it, what impact do you think atom bomb explosions had
>> on Earth's orbit?
>>
>>
>> * With that calibration out of the way, how much mass in terms of
>> spaceships or energy in terms of atom bombs do you think we'd have to
>> slam into the Moon to significantly impact its orbit?
>>
>>
>> * How much more do you think it would take to make it leave Earth's
>> orbit entirely and hurtle down towards Venus?
>>
>>
>> * If that mass is supposed to come from Earth, what fraction of that
>> mass would you say is carried in a typical Artemis launch - the most
>> powerful rocket launched so far ? 2 ? 10 ? 1000 ? 1 000 000 ? A number
>> too big to usefully picture?
>>
>> * How many Artemis launches could humanity make a year if we *really*
>> tried do you think - considering right now we've done 1 and the next is
>> in a couple of years? And that adding it all other rockets (even though
>> many are doing things like launching satellites that we might want to
>> continue doing) increases that number by maybe two orders of magnitude
>> at most?
>>
>>
>> And that's ignoring the distance issue. Currently a probe takes 4-6
>> years to get to Jupiter (if they're actually going there; flybys can get
>> there in a year but this wouldn't be a flyby. And of course it takes
>> waaaaaaay longer than a year to organize a mission to Jupiter from
>> scratch). But Io or Europa are something like 10^20 more massive than a
>> probe, so accelerating them to a similar velocity is, well, I don't
>> know, maybe way harder than getting them to escape velocity; certainly
>> not much easier. So either we're adding yet more orders of magnitudes to
>> the energy we don't have, or the trip will be too long for a "quick"
>> solution. If it can even happen within a generation, again I haven't
>> done the math.
>>
>>
>> That's not even considering the fact that in space everything actually
>> depends on where the orbits are at any given time - you can definitely
>> reduce the amount of energy required, not to a possible amount but still
>> reduced, by picking the impulses and trajectories so as to use
>> gravitational forces as much as possible, as we currently do with
>> gravitational slingshots. I don't know what combination would be
>> required for the best results but apparently Earth and Jupiter have
>> close approaches about once a year. Add Europa/Io's orbits and I'd guess
>> we'd have several years between windows. And if you want to use
>> asteroids or other moons to push them instead of mass coming from Earth
>> then you also need to calculate those orbits - I wonder if that starts
>> hitting the limits of what we can even do computationally tbh.
>>>>>> although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
>>>>> Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
>>>> It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
>>>
>>> I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done). But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
>> The catastrophe of anthropogenic global warming isn't so much that it's
>> happening (which is a problem, but not necessarily a catastrophe), but
>> that it's happening too fast for even our societies to smoothly adapt,
>> let alone evolved ecosystems. Natural climate fluctuations are much less
>> of an issue on that front; even insofar as it's true that we're adapted
>> to an unusually stable Holocene period and that natural fluctuations
>> could take us into unprecedented territory, we're also very adaptable
>> critters and there's no reason to think we couldn't make such a change
>> work if it happened over millenia or more. At those scales global
>> warming could even be beneficial, insofar as it causes the Earth to
>> support higher productivity.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what natural global warming you're talking about, if it's
>> linked to the Milankovich cycles or what, but do you have a cite on the
>> rate of change that's expected from it?
>>
>>
>> Either way I don't really see how moving the Earth's orbit would protect
>> us from climate fluctuations. It would make for a slightly colder
>> baseline, but *natural* climate change is capable of fluctuations around
>> that baseline that are massively larger than anything humanity's ever
>> experienced. If we're considering the human future over geological time
>> frames then dealing with significantly different climates (or forces
>> threatening to cause such) will be a must. Unless you think we should
>> keep adjusting the Earth's orbit like a dial marked "RACISM".
>
> A lot of besides-the point nonsense.
>
> Are you an expert ? The answer is obviously no, as I think you said at some point. Thanks, that's all I need to know from you.
>

pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:29:57 AM UTC-4, Default User wrote:

>> I was just suggesting a location for his asteroid drop.
>
> So, in the middle of a densly populated region?
>
>Not the best spot.

But an effective one.

Brian

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:55:57 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> > > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> > > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> > > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> > > what natural global warming do you think we have?
> > > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
> > The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
> We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
> interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
> oscillations in between.
> >Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
> It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.
> >what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much human-induced.
> None of it is natural. Without the human contribution the combined solar-volcanic effect would have cooled things
> slightly, but negligibly.

I need a solid reference on this, otherwise I cannot believe it.
Nobody really knows. That's how they say it, that's why they avoid to give straight answers to basic questions, like, what's the worst thing we can reasonably expect, and yes, how much of it is natural and how much human-generated. Nobody with authority answers these things clearly. Or if they do, provide an authoritative link. I don't think you can. And just repeating your opinion won't be any good.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:28:17 AM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> On 21/07/2023 22:18, VSim wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:28 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >> On 20/07/2023 04:29, VSim wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >>>>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> >>>>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >>>>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> >>>>>>>>> V. Sim.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> >>>>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> >>>>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> >>>>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> >>>> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> >>>> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >>>>
> >>>> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> >>>>
> >>>> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
> >>>>
> >>>> You figure out the energy involved in doing that
> >>>
> >>> As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
> >>> And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
> >>>
> >> "Throwing out big numbers" is exactly the point. The laws of physics and
> >> thermodynamics say what is possible to do and what it would take to do
> >> it, and it seems you don't have an appreciation for what it would take
> >> to do what you're saying - on a pure resource consumption level, let
> >> alone developing the infrastructure and political will to achieve
> >> something so unlike anything any human society has ever done before.
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems like your mental image of this problem is that we need to nudge
> >> these huge foam balls floating in space in our direction. Like a small
> >> tugboat pulling a huge ship, it seems manageable because there is no
> >> friction, right. Even if you can't move it a lot, a small amount of
> >> acceleration in the right direction is enough to make it move in the
> >> right direction and then it kind of takes care of itself.
> >>
> >>
> >> The two issues are 1) these aren't huge foam balls or a large ship,
> >> they're planetary bodies within two order of magnitudes of our own
> >> planet in size. It's hard to picture how big that is because we can't
> >> even picture how big *our* planet is BECAUSE IT'S SO BIG, but it's big..
> >> And 2) while there is no friction in space to oppose movement, all those
> >> planetary bodies are subject to gravitational forces that do.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, it's been too long since I've done maths and physics to actually do
> >> the maths for you but I can try and find numbers that can help our
> >> intuitions. First, in terms of mass it seems that Europa or Io are the
> >> only ones of Jupiter's moons that are in our ballpark, with about
> >> 9x10^22 kg to the Moon's 7 for Io and 4x10^22 for Europa. Io is about
> >> 420 000 km from Jupiter, only a bit more than the 380 000 km the Moon is
> >> from the Earth, and Europa is further at 670 000 km from Jupiter. All
> >> the other moons are bigger (Callisto and Ganymede) or so many orders of
> >> magnitudes smaller that you'd need millions to get the mass you want.
> >>
> >>
> >> (already things are starting pretty badly because I can already say the
> >> political will for destroying Io or Europa, of all moons in the Solar
> >> System, will be nil).
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway, the distance from Jupiter tells you how much energy they'll need
> >> to get out of Jupiter's orbit. Earth's mass is about 6x10^24 kg while
> >> Jupiter's is about 500x that. While I can no longer do the math, I
> >> *think* it should mean that at from an equal starting distance it should
> >> take about 500x more energy to leave Jupiter's orbit than Earth's (I
> >> checked equations, yes it seems energy should scale linearly with mass
> >> and inversely with distance).
> >>
> >>
> >> In other words, it would take 500 times more energy to pull Io from
> >> Jupiter's orbit than it would take to pull the Moon from Earth's orbit,
> >> and with smaller, further Europe it would merely take a modest 100 times
> >> more energy to achieve that goal.
> >>
> >>
> >> OK so pulling the Moon from Earth's orbit is also pretty hard to
> >> picture, but unlike Io and Europa we have some concrete examples of
> >> interacting with it. So here are some questions for you:
> >>
> >>
> >> * By how much did the Apollo landers push the Moon when they landed on
> >> it, do you think? Did they appreciably impact its orbit or was their
> >> impact about as negligeable as that of you jumping on the couch ?
> >>
> >>
> >> * For that matter, would you say that the total number of spaceships
> >> that crashed into the Moon since the dawn of the space age had a
> >> noticeable impact on its orbit or nah?
> >>
> >> * While we're at it, what impact do you think atom bomb explosions had
> >> on Earth's orbit?
> >>
> >>
> >> * With that calibration out of the way, how much mass in terms of
> >> spaceships or energy in terms of atom bombs do you think we'd have to
> >> slam into the Moon to significantly impact its orbit?
> >>
> >>
> >> * How much more do you think it would take to make it leave Earth's
> >> orbit entirely and hurtle down towards Venus?
> >>
> >>
> >> * If that mass is supposed to come from Earth, what fraction of that
> >> mass would you say is carried in a typical Artemis launch - the most
> >> powerful rocket launched so far ? 2 ? 10 ? 1000 ? 1 000 000 ? A number
> >> too big to usefully picture?
> >>
> >> * How many Artemis launches could humanity make a year if we *really*
> >> tried do you think - considering right now we've done 1 and the next is
> >> in a couple of years? And that adding it all other rockets (even though
> >> many are doing things like launching satellites that we might want to
> >> continue doing) increases that number by maybe two orders of magnitude
> >> at most?
> >>
> >>
> >> And that's ignoring the distance issue. Currently a probe takes 4-6
> >> years to get to Jupiter (if they're actually going there; flybys can get
> >> there in a year but this wouldn't be a flyby. And of course it takes
> >> waaaaaaay longer than a year to organize a mission to Jupiter from
> >> scratch). But Io or Europa are something like 10^20 more massive than a
> >> probe, so accelerating them to a similar velocity is, well, I don't
> >> know, maybe way harder than getting them to escape velocity; certainly
> >> not much easier. So either we're adding yet more orders of magnitudes to
> >> the energy we don't have, or the trip will be too long for a "quick"
> >> solution. If it can even happen within a generation, again I haven't
> >> done the math.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's not even considering the fact that in space everything actually
> >> depends on where the orbits are at any given time - you can definitely
> >> reduce the amount of energy required, not to a possible amount but still
> >> reduced, by picking the impulses and trajectories so as to use
> >> gravitational forces as much as possible, as we currently do with
> >> gravitational slingshots. I don't know what combination would be
> >> required for the best results but apparently Earth and Jupiter have
> >> close approaches about once a year. Add Europa/Io's orbits and I'd guess
> >> we'd have several years between windows. And if you want to use
> >> asteroids or other moons to push them instead of mass coming from Earth
> >> then you also need to calculate those orbits - I wonder if that starts
> >> hitting the limits of what we can even do computationally tbh.
> >>>>>> although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> >>>>> Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> >>>> It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> >>>
> >>> I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done). But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> >> The catastrophe of anthropogenic global warming isn't so much that it's
> >> happening (which is a problem, but not necessarily a catastrophe), but
> >> that it's happening too fast for even our societies to smoothly adapt,
> >> let alone evolved ecosystems. Natural climate fluctuations are much less
> >> of an issue on that front; even insofar as it's true that we're adapted
> >> to an unusually stable Holocene period and that natural fluctuations
> >> could take us into unprecedented territory, we're also very adaptable
> >> critters and there's no reason to think we couldn't make such a change
> >> work if it happened over millenia or more. At those scales global
> >> warming could even be beneficial, insofar as it causes the Earth to
> >> support higher productivity.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what natural global warming you're talking about, if it's
> >> linked to the Milankovich cycles or what, but do you have a cite on the
> >> rate of change that's expected from it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Either way I don't really see how moving the Earth's orbit would protect
> >> us from climate fluctuations. It would make for a slightly colder
> >> baseline, but *natural* climate change is capable of fluctuations around
> >> that baseline that are massively larger than anything humanity's ever
> >> experienced. If we're considering the human future over geological time
> >> frames then dealing with significantly different climates (or forces
> >> threatening to cause such) will be a must. Unless you think we should
> >> keep adjusting the Earth's orbit like a dial marked "RACISM".
> >
> > A lot of besides-the point nonsense.
> >
> > Are you an expert ? The answer is obviously no, as I think you said at some point. Thanks, that's all I need to know from you.
> >
> I'm sorry you didn't find what you wanted here. I'm not sure why you
> thought you'd get expert eyes on your proposal here in
> rec.arts.sf.written; of course science-fiction appreciators absolutely
> include expert scientists but this is still fundamentally a
> literature/arts kind of group.
>
>
> Now you say I am obviously not an expert and that's true, but I would
> say that it's just as obvious I have more expertise in the relevant
> physics than you do.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:00:52 PM UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:11:39 AM UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> >>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >>>
> >>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >>>
> >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >>>
> >>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> >>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >>>
> >>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >>>
> >>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >>>
> >>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> >>> V. Sim.
> >>>
> >>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >>>
> >>> -------------------
> >>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> >>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> >> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
> >> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >
> > Who's going to control the process ? The UN ? Or the US ? :)
> > Anyway, I don't think it works. Too costly. The umbrellas would have to be big and would go broke way too quickly. The orbit, once increased, remains so for a lot of time.
> >
> > They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
> > With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>
> Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship
> needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth
> could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball.

That's why it would be best to do it in 2 or 3 steps.
You are saying that we don't know how small the first step should be. Maybe but I doubt it. If some true specialists, many, do the calculations, then we take a cautious approach of doing just 1 / 4 of the theoretically safe value first, I don't think anything could go wrong. Of course some real experts would need to certify this. :)

> After all,
> Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both
> of the poles are ice bound.

I need an authoritative link on this one too.

On 22/07/2023 15:31, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 1:28:17 AM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 21/07/2023 22:18, VSim wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:28 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:

snip

>>>
>>> A lot of besides-the point nonsense.
>>>
>>> Are you an expert ? The answer is obviously no, as I think you said at some point. Thanks, that's all I need to know from you.
>>>
>> I'm sorry you didn't find what you wanted here. I'm not sure why you
>> thought you'd get expert eyes on your proposal here in
>> rec.arts.sf.written; of course science-fiction appreciators absolutely
>> include expert scientists but this is still fundamentally a
>> literature/arts kind of group.
>>
>>
>> Now you say I am obviously not an expert and that's true, but I would
>> say that it's just as obvious I have more expertise in the relevant
>> physics than you do.
>
> That's probably true but irrelevant. I need a real expert, not one who's just better than me.
>
>> I can't be the expert eyes you wish for but I think
>> I can help you get an idea of what kind of things experts would consider
>> in evaluating your proposal, which could maybe help you gain some time
>> if you do get experts to weigh in somewhere else than here. Is that
>> something that would interest you?
>
> Well as long as you refuse to go read the details on my page, you have actually no idea what you're talking about and cannot be of any help to me in this respect either.
>

I'm not refusing anything, the first I heard of your page is two replies
of yours down from my original reply and those replies were you saying
you weren't interested in my input so there isn't much reason for me to
check it out for the moment (this isn't to say you didn't mention your
webpage earlier, just that I didn't notice and never made a decision to
refuse to read it). I also feel that your original post seemed complete
enough and my own reply addressed that post specifically enough that I'm
not sure what extra information a different webpage could contain that's
relevant to this specific exchange. Like, you said my original reply was
besides the point which suggests I massively misread your original post,
is there a reason you think reading your webpage on its own would
correct my misreading better than just talking things out here ? Or are
there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?

Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
wanting to discuss things with me.

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:06:03 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.

That's interesting, it deserves an answer.

My guess is Russia would be very much in favor, as it increases the need for their gas and oil. Europe not so much, the last thing they'd need now that they don't have cheap russian gas any more would be harsher winters. And neither they nor the US would like to do something that's so good for the russians. But they're going to have to say it. And I don't think even the US would dare say, we don't want to reverse global warming because it benefits Putin.
As for China, I really don't know. But given that they can rely on any amount of cheap gas from their russian friends, and that they're the largest fossil fuel burners out there and this would mean a break from all this fuss around fossil fuels, my guess is they'd be in favor too. (And given how strong the russians are in rockets and atom bombs, they might be tempted to do it themselves on their own. And I'd like to see the americans trying to stop them. :) )

In any case, first it should be established that it's actually doable.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> Or are
> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?

Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it. And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.

> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> wanting to discuss things with me.

If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.

On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>> Or are
>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>
> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.

The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
"orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.

> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>
>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>> wanting to discuss things with me.
>
> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>

Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
that second one?

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 11:27:59 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:55:57 AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > > > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> > > > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> > > > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> > > > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> > > > what natural global warming do you think we have?
> > > > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
> > > The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
> > We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
> > interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
> > oscillations in between.
> > >Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
> > It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows..
> > >what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much human-induced.
> > None of it is natural. Without the human contribution the combined solar-volcanic effect would have cooled things
> > slightly, but negligibly.
> I need a solid reference on this, otherwise I cannot believe it.

William Hyde is a researcher in the field.

Here's a layman level of information on what would be happening
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/special-reports/maines-changing-climate/would-earth-be-warming-without-us/97-aa9c6e18-a6c0-42ee-8ecb-8a061ceaebbb#:~:text=Breaking%20down%20all%20these%20forcing,any%20other%20period%20in%20history.

> Nobody really knows.

Bullshit

>That's how they say it, that's why they avoid to give straight answers to basic questions, like, what's the worst thing we can reasonably expect,

Bullshit, although "reasonably expect" is sufficient weasel words that giving a reasonable answer would require rephrasing the question

> and yes, how much of it is natural and how much human-generated.

Bullshit.
There's been a bucketload of research and the answer is the recent change in climate is entirely human driven

>Nobody with authority answers these things clearly. Or if they do, provide an authoritative link. I don't think you can. And just repeating your opinion won't be any good.

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >> Or are
> >> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> >> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> >
> > Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> >
> >> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> >> wanting to discuss things with me.
> >
> > If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> >
> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> that second one?

The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
It was not mentioned in the original post
for a direct link
http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm

His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> > On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > >> Or are
> > >> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> > >> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> > >
> > > Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> > The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> > that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> > big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> > orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> > "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> > global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> > you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > > And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> > >
> > >> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> > >> wanting to discuss things with me.
> > >
> > > If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> > >
> > Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> > asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> > where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> > the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> > that second one?
> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> It was not mentioned in the original post
> for a direct link
> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>
> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit

Thanks. I was going to do just this.

And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.

Now I'm a layman but I do know some basic physics. The potential energy of a small Saturn or Uranus moon is very big. Big enough, I guess, to extract a large moon of Jupiter from orbit. Or if it's not, I'd like to see the calculation for it. I think it would be a little bit more complex and relevant than comparing it with the Apollo lander or other such nonsense.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 10:47:21 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> > > On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> > > >> Or are
> > > >> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> > > >> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> > > The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> > > that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> > > big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> > > orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> > > "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> > > global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> > > you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> > > > And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> > > >
> > > >> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> > > >> wanting to discuss things with me.
> > > >
> > > > If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you.. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> > > >
> > > Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> > > asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> > > where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> > > the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> > > that second one?
> > The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> > If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> > It was not mentioned in the original post
> > for a direct link
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> >
> > His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> Thanks. I was going to do just this.
>
> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
>
> Now I'm a layman but I do know some basic physics. The potential energy of a small Saturn or Uranus moon is very big. Big enough, I guess, to extract a large moon of Jupiter from orbit. Or if it's not, I'd like to see the calculation for it. I think it would be a little bit more complex and relevant than comparing it with the Apollo lander or other such nonsense.

You are Immanuel Velikovsky, AICMFP.

PT

VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 12:55:57=E2=80=AFAM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote=
>:
>> On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, VSim wrote:=20
>> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28=E2=80=AFPM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wro=
>te:=20
>> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11=E2=80=AFPM UTC+10, VSim wrote:=
>=20
>> > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31=E2=80=AFAM UTC+3, Hamish Laws=
> wrote:=20
>> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20=E2=80=AFPM UTC+10, VSim w=
>rote:=20
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42=E2=80=AFPM UTC+3, Hamish=
> Laws wrote:=20
>> > > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminati=
>ng fossil fuel usage.=20
>> > > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.=20
>> > > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in =
>temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the =
>atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how pract=
>ical it is to do is still unknown)=20
>> > > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though i=
>t looks like it's easier said than done).=20
>> > > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda co=
>mpared to research into alternatives...=20
>> > > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will=
> have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.=20
>> > > what natural global warming do you think we have?=20
>> > > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact=20
>> > The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is n=
>aturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
>> We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year p=
>eriod. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all=20
>> interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an=
> interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible=20
>> oscillations in between.
>> >Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at le=
>ast. Nobody knows
>> It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.
>> >what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much huma=
>n-induced.
>> None of it is natural. Without the human contribution the combined solar-=
>volcanic effect would have cooled things=20
>> slightly, but negligibly.=20
>
>I need a solid reference on this, otherwise I cannot believe it.

You should be made aware that Dr. Hyde is a noted scientist
who studies the climate for a living; I'd certainly weigh his
statements as far more reliable than some anonymous poster
on usenet.

>Nobody really knows.

That's what ignorant people say. The professionals in the field
would disagree with your assessment.

What are your qualifications, if one may ask?

On 22/07/2023 16:40, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>>> Or are
>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>>>
>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>>>
>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
>>>
>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>>>
>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
>> that second one?
>
> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> It was not mentioned in the original post
> for a direct link
> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>
> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
>

Thank you, that is very considerate of you!

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 06:52:15 -0700 (PDT), VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:06:03?AM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>
>That's interesting, it deserves an answer.
>
>My guess is Russia would be very much in favor, as it increases the need for their gas and oil. Europe not so much, the last thing they'd need now that they don't have cheap russian gas any more would be harsher winters. And neither they nor the US would like to do something that's so good for the russians. But they're going to have to say it. And I don't think even the US would dare say, we don't want to reverse global warming because it benefits Putin.

Oh, I don't know. There seem to be a /lot/ of people in the USA who
dare to say all sorts of things. Wingnuts, to be sure, and on all
sides.

>As for China, I really don't know. But given that they can rely on any amount of cheap gas from their russian friends, and that they're the largest fossil fuel burners out there and this would mean a break from all this fuss around fossil fuels, my guess is they'd be in favor too. (And given how strong the russians are in rockets and atom bombs, they might be tempted to do it themselves on their own. And I'd like to see the americans trying to stop them. :) )
>
>In any case, first it should be established that it's actually doable.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18?AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
>> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03?PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>> >> Or are
>> >> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>> >> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>> >
>> > Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
>> > And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>> >
>> >> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>> >> wanting to discuss things with me.
>> >
>> > If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>> >
>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
>> that second one?
>
>The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
>If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
>It was not mentioned in the original post
>for a direct link
>http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>
>His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit

Playing billiards with the Solar System!

Velikovsky would be proud!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>> Or are
>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>>>>
>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
>>>>
>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>>>>
>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
>>> that second one?
>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
>> It was not mentioned in the original post
>> for a direct link
>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>>
>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
>
> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.

OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
have involved a lot more calculations.

The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
out Io or Europa. Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
on a computational level.

Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.

Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
ones I did?

>
> Now I'm a layman but I do know some basic physics. The potential energy of a small Saturn or Uranus moon is very big. Big enough, I guess, to extract a large moon of Jupiter from orbit. Or if it's not, I'd like to see the calculation for it. I think it would be a little bit more complex and relevant than comparing it with the Apollo lander or other such nonsense.
>

Why do you think a comparison with the Apollo lander is irrelevant? The
question here is essentially, "can we do this thing". There are two
sides to that question: "how hard is the thing to do" and "how hard are
the things we're capable of doing". How likely and even possible the
thing is depends on whether the two ranges overlap, and how large the
gap is between them if they don't. I think the Apollo lander (and maybe
even more so the Artemis launches) are decent first-pass calibrations
for that second one.

But like I said, if I continue the calculations I might look up that
asteroid deflecting experiment which seems more directly comparable.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 4:28:18?PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31?AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20?PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42?PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
>> > > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
>> > > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
>> > > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
>> > Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
>> > > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
>> > what natural global warming do you think we have?
>> > We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact
>> The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions.
>
>We are in an interglacial.. We are at the end of that ten thousand year period. Normally things would start cooling soon, but not all
>interglacials are of equal length. Things do not warm uniformly during an interglacial. They warm, then cool, with possible
>oscillations in between.
>
>
>>Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows
>
>It is a common error to think that because you don't know, nobody knows.

So, then, who /knows/ how long the current interglacial will last?

(You put forth a good principal, but it helps if the topic is
something somebody might actually know.)

>>what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much human-induced.
>
>None of it is natural. Without the human contribution the combined solar-volcanic effect would have cooled things
>slightly, but negligibly.
>
>You really don't know anything on this topic. I suggest some reading.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> >>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>> Or are
> >>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> >>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> >>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> >>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> >>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> >>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> >>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> >>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> >>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> >>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course..
> >>>>
> >>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> >>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion..
> >>>>
> >>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> >>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> >>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> >>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> >>> that second one?
> >> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> >> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> >> It was not mentioned in the original post
> >> for a direct link
> >> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> >>
> >> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> >
> > Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> > And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> have involved a lot more calculations.
>
> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> out Io or Europa.

Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).

> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> on a computational level.
>
> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
>
> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> ones I did?

The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.

If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)

You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)

On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>>>> Or are
>>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
>>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
>>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
>>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
>>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
>>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
>>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
>>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
>>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
>>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
>>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
>>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
>>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
>>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
>>>>> that second one?
>>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
>>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
>>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
>>>> for a direct link
>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
>>>>
>>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
>>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
>> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
>> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
>> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
>> have involved a lot more calculations.
>>
>> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
>> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
>> out Io or Europa.
>
> Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
> At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
>
>> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
>> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
>> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
>> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
>> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
>> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
>> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
>> on a computational level.
>>
>> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
>> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
>> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
>> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
>> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
>> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
>> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
>> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
>> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
>> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
>> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
>> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
>> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
>> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
>> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
>> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
>>
>> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
>> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
>> ones I did?
>
> The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
>
> If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
>
> You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
>

You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked. I
also said in the comment this replied to that I looked up the moons of
Saturn, Neptune and Uranus to see which moons were around the 5-10% mass
you talked about and Rhea was the only one within an order of magnitude.

Thank you for saying the calculations I was proposing might interest
you, I'll look into it.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 8:42:52 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> On 22/07/2023 19:31, VSim wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:14:00 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >> On 22/07/2023 16:47, VSim wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:40:21 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>> On 22/07/2023 15:59, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:46:03 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Or are
> >>>>>>> there specific bits of info you think my reply failed to address that
> >>>>>>> weren't in your post but are on your webpage ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. As I said in my second post, the problem is that the target moon is too big to be easily extracted from orbit, which all of you keep repeating as if I wasn't already aware of it.
> >>>>> The argument I and Hamish Law who I bounced off of were making isn't
> >>>>> that it's too big to be *easily* extracted from orbit, it's that it's
> >>>>> big enough that the level of difficulty involved in extracting it from
> >>>>> orbit ranges from "beyond our current capabilities", to at minimum
> >>>>> "orders of magnitude more difficult than the other options for fighting
> >>>>> global warming". And I think it's pretty clear that this is an argument
> >>>>> you actively disagree with, not one you're unaware of.
> >>>>>> And I've addressed this on my webpage, as best I could, and I think it might have a chance of actually working, without being certain of course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Either way I'm happy to check it out if you change your mind about
> >>>>>>> wanting to discuss things with me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you do read it, I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. But please keep it short. And as a general rule I'm leading the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Okay... I assumed the website was referenced in the comment where you
> >>>>> asked people to go check the website but it's not so I don't really know
> >>>>> where to look. The only two links on your original post seem to be to
> >>>>> the science article you disagree with and a link about timetravel. Is it
> >>>>> that second one?
> >>>> The link about timetravel takes you to an article on it
> >>>> If you go down to the bottom of the article there's a link to the site index and then you can find the article on moving the earth's orbit
> >>>> It was not mentioned in the original post
> >>>> for a direct link
> >>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/increase_Earth_orbit.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> His suggestion is hit a moon of jupiter may be too big to be moved out of orbit by an asteroid impact so instead move a moon of saturn, uranus or neptune by asteroid impact and have it hit jupiter's moon and knock it out of orbit
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. I was going to do just this. >
> >>> And if 2 steps (2 moons) are not enough,, we could try 3 or even 4.
> >> OK, thank you for clarifying. This is a possibility I did consider, in
> >> fact I had a line addressing it in my first reply albeit very briefly.
> >> My reply was long enough as it was and exploring this possibility would
> >> have involved a lot more calculations.
> >>
> >> The basic idea I believe is sound, you could knock increasingly bigger
> >> asteroids and moons into each other until you had enough energy to knock
> >> out Io or Europa.
> >
> > Finally the first positive thing somebody says in this thread. Thanks.
> > At the very least it's not just some lunatic's pipe dream. It's something worth looking into, even if the end result would be that it's not currently possible (which it very well might be).
> >
> >> Much like the picture of the person knocking over the
> >> huge domino thanks to a sequence of increasingly larger ones starting
> >> with a very small one. My intuition is that this does not help because
> >> the size differential between what we can do and the energy required to,
> >> say, steer Europa into changing Earth's orbit is so huge that the steps
> >> required are orders of magnitude larger than 3 or 4. That's why the one
> >> sentence I had on this was about the possibility it was impossible just
> >> on a computational level.
> >>
> >> Of course my intuition could be wrong and now that I understand more
> >> specifically what you're proposing I'd be happy to look up the numbers
> >> and think of how to test that intuition with what we know of the
> >> relevant equations. I've already looked up the relevant moons and seen
> >> that the only one that matches your mass requirement is Saturn's Rhea,
> >> which would also require an order of magnitude or so more energy to
> >> knock out of its orbit than the Moon does from Earth's orbit. It also
> >> occurred to me that there were recent attempts to shift an asteroid's
> >> orbit that could help quantify our actual current capacities in the
> >> matter. It would take some maths and looking up more asteroid and moon
> >> characteristics to get an idea of how many steps might actually be
> >> required between those. In terms of the potential energy I'm not sure my
> >> intuitions are reliable so I'd have more things to look up on that. I'm
> >> also interested in the distances involved, as using successively larger
> >> moons taken from the outer Solar System explodes the amount of time
> >> required but I'd have to look numbers up to have an idea of how much.
> >>
> >> Are you interested in me looking those things up and doing calculations
> >> or do you feel they are irrelevant to your proposal as with the first
> >> ones I did?
> >
> > The first ones were irrelevant. And I'm not going to waste time explaining why, it should be too clear.
> >
> > If you have time and are interested to do some calculations, sure, please do. It's actually more of a question whether you are interested to do them than whether I am. But if you post them here I'll look into them, I think I'm qualified enough to understand them. (That said, it would be useful and interesting but a real specialist would still be needed. But, if you show me clearly enough that the order of magnitude of the problem is much bigger than I hope, and that 3 - 4 intermediate steps are way too few, this would indeed be useful. And you can be sure I'll accept it if the numbers are clear.)
> >
> > You could start by seeing if there is a small moon on Saturn that would be big enough to do the job on the TJM. Actually, first, what would be the moon of choice from Jupiter ? That should be a fairly easy question. If there is a small moon of Saturn, how big would it be ? I'm thinking maybe like 5% of TJM but this needs confirmation. And if there is no good one around Saturn, maybe Uranus. :)
> >
> You say my first calculations were irrelevant but I'm not sure you even
> read them because they answered the exact questions you just asked.

I didn't. You have to agree your post was way too long so I had no way of sorting out the useful bits.
> also said in the comment this replied to that I looked up the moons of
> Saturn, Neptune and Uranus to see which moons were around the 5-10% mass
> you talked about and Rhea was the only one within an order of magnitude.

The 5% is just my guess. I'd think, first we should see what's the moon of Jupiter that requires the least energy (among the 4 big ones), and then, if there is one of Saturn that has that energy. And if so, what's the smallest one. (I'm sure Titan would be big enough but that's of not much use.) At least that's how I would proceed. But you are the mathematician so I'll let you work.

> Thank you for saying the calculations I was proposing might interest
> you, I'll look into it.

Good luck.