pywakit

I accept the rebuke. Question is retracted. I am sorry for offending you, and I understand why you were. I will try harder to tone down the passion.

No sneer intended. It was a reasonable question. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No attitude intended either. My very sincere apology for coming across that way. If you could, please just think of it as a 'passionate' attitude. Pointing out flaws that great scientists have made is just to illustrate a point. Not to belittle. Not to 'prove' I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. Having a mind set is understandable. I fight my own all the time. Sometimes emotions cloud reason, and sometimes people assume too much. How could a statement like this be construed as "I'm right and everyone else is wrong"? It does challenge, though. It wasn't intended to be a sneer by any means. Observing that 'I don't think it is' was not a baseless comment. Nor irrational. Just annoying. A heated debate is not a bad thing. No one will die. Lol. As I recall, Einstein said some pretty bad things about Hubble. Galileo's peers said some bad things about him. No one likes their beliefs questioned. It's going to cause some heartburn. Please don't take things personally. I will continue to do my best to remain reasonable. Again, if I am too annoying, or acting irrationally, I will understand if you choose to remove me. Thanks again.

Ok. Thanks. So should I assume that isotropy does not imply 'finite' either? If so, then how have you, or anyone else arrived at the presumption that it IS finite? Where is your actual evidence? The math? The obsevations? Or do you presume it because it sounds good to you? My 'logic' is not a stand alone elementary exercise. It is a rational look at all available evidence, and arriving at a reasonable 'working' model. I do not make assumptions. I do not 'assume' the universe is either finite, or infinite. I am just reporting what the evidence infers without preconceptions. At least, that's what I am trying to do. It seems you are the one jumping to false, and unsupported conclusions ( no offense ) about me, my understanding of the universe, my familiarity with the standard model, or other models. Attack my model. Or my facts. Not me. Fair? I have already conceded your intellectual superiority. Now prove it is actually superior in this field. Have yet to see the evidence. Safety in numbers is not evidence. So how many 'hypothetical' models are out there anyway? Quite a few. What makes you think any of them are right? Certainly, at best ... LOGICALLY ... only one COULD be right. All pretty bright people. How could so many be wrong? Or is that too logical an exercise? The fallback position of continually repeating I am too obtuse to understand gets tiresome. You have yet to point out an actual flaw with my reasoning, or my facts. Your perception that it is flawed ( and you just stating that it is flawed ) does not guarantee the flaw. Is it conceiveable to you that YOUR reasoning might be flawed? I don't think it is. It certainly is conceivable to me that mine might be ..... Your 'blue ribbon panel' ( very impressive, I must say ) has made a presumption of a finite universe as a working model. If it has boundries ... whether 600 billion light years or 600 septillion light years squared ... it's finite. What is that presumption based on? How many brilliant people made similar arguments to yours when defending the steady state universe? The evidence for an expanding universe was pouring in. Did the brilliant scientists just say ... "Hmmm. Ok. Guess we were wrong."? Or did they go to their graves unable to accept reality? Really. You have much too high an opinion of yourselves. But then, I do too. I'm trying to work on it.

Alright. We have an immediate problem. 1. Your use of the word 'universe'. Please be more specific. So you mean the hypothetical model that is 600 billion light years across? Or just our visible local universe. 2. I never said 'exactly'. Again, where? In that 600 billion light year universe? And are we talking about distribution of matter in our local universe as opposed to that 600B one? One would think there is a distinction. What do those models predict for density of matter out side our local universe? But in general terms, I agree. There will be 'approximate' isotropic distribution of matter in the local universe. I think it is safe to say that 'distribution' number is significantly lower when looking at the 'universe' outside our universe. Logic says they imply one of 3 things. Infinity. Finite. Or Nothing. Lol. Feel free to make your case for 'Finite', or 'Nothing'. Uniformity of space at the very least 'infers' infinity. What evidence do you have to refute that other than 'theoretical models' that 'satisfy' a finite universe, but require ( let's face reality here ) magic, or re-writing physics? I have said this so many times. Mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to actually existing. Do I read this correctly? A 'lower bound'? Hmm. Ok. What's the 'higher bound'. My gosh. You scientists really have a hard time with infinity don't you? Lol. I have always loved the 'safety in numbers' defense. Works great if you are an antelope. I have said this before too. There is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth. Well, anyway I'm seeing a small problem because our expanding bubble of matter/energy is estimated by some to be around a 156 billion light year diameter. Others are still stuck at about 90. So what's the average dens ... oh never mind. Lol. Oh really? Name one. Hypotheticals don't count. It's ridiculous to claim uniformity implies 'finite'. Or nothing. Well, I do ask questions. I have never claimed to be 100% certain. I have invited one and all to tear apart anything I say. I have to make the statements before you can debate them ... I assume. Or was I supposed to just accept that I couldn't possibly know as much or more than you about the universe ( cosmologically speaking ) and just study all the wonderful posts you all have made for the last year. Incredibly, I did not come up with any of this by reading tarot cards. That said, I do not deny for a second that you all have a skill set far beyond my abilities. That does not preclude me from generally comprehending the evidence. Or looking at the problem with fresh eyes. It shouldn't take any of you but a few seconds to dismantle some crack pot idea, and kick the offender to the curb. I couldn't help but notice many of you tend to get a little emotional over this .... Really. You should be a little more open-minded. "Out of the mouths of babes." You never know who is going to come up with an excellent idea. Edison never went to college. Wonder if he would have passed muster with you all. Sounds like you made another incorrect assumption. Dr. Tyson had plenty of time to explain. And his point was totally understandable. But he is not infallible. Einstein wasn't. Galileo wasn't. Newton wasn't. Why would I assume Neil wasn't? And why would I assume I'm not, either? I also assume matter is coextensive with space. But there simply is no evidence of any kind that infers space is finite. It is pure speculation. Inferring space is infinite is reliant on math, experiments, and observations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry you feel I need to chill. I was just being playful. I didn't really care that Martin called me 'wakit' It made me laugh. Hence all the lol's ... Always up for improving my understanding. That's what it's all about right? But don't expect me to just accept what I am told as 'fact'. People make mistakes all the time. Again, I am not challenging conventional physics. Just conventional wisdom. New ideas are good. Yes? I have heard most of the 'old ideas', and I have found them lacking in one way or another. Not the physics, per se, ( although the reliance on unproven/untested superphysics is reasonable grounds for debate ) My problem, and it should be yours too, is the reliance on the hpotheticals. You give them a life of their own. An undeserved life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thank you. Feel free to reign me in when I get out of line ...

Ok. Sorry for stooping to that level. It's so funny. I was admonished on another thread for starting off with ... "I'm not that smart." 'Doesn't lend any credibility to your theories'. I was told. And then that was immediately followed by another admonishment for being 'egotistical'. Can't win. Lol. Just read your message. I didn't put this thread here. Or are you talking about my model? If somebody wants to move it, it won't bother me. As far as 'accepted science', I am in almost complete agreement with you. Where I differ is where you insist that we stay within the bounds of mainstream theory. Since I am proposing nothing that requires 'new physics' or magic to make the model work, I fail to see how this violates the 'known and accepted' physics rule. So may I go ahead and rebutt your assertions now? Thanks. And Py is fine. You do know who Pywakit was, don't you? Just a little whimsy from a non-theist.

Lol. Martin, I am reminded of all the 'blue ribbon' reports that have come down the pike in the last 500 years. Like the Vatican's trial of Copernican theory. Once you science guys get a mind set there's no stopping you. Especially when a knothead like me challenges 'conventional wisdom'. Why the disrespect? 'Wakit? Hmmm. This sends a subtle message to others that I am a little 'whacked out', does it not? Yes. it does. Shame on you. Ok, then. Lol. Not to point out the obvious, but since you have opened the door .... Having a picture of Alfred E. Newman as your thumbnail does not exactly instill confidence in your statements. Lol. I will be back after dinner to rebutt the 'lots of mistakes' you claim I made.

Yes that is true. But irrelevant. You are ( I am afraid ) not looking at the big picture. Number 1. Life will make every effort to continue existing. Do you think neanderthal failed to notice they were going extinct? For whatever reason, they failed. And the conditons under which they existed were not appreciably different than homosapiens. Number 2. The neanderthal had an extra 200,000 years to get their act together. Number 3. I'm sorry to restate this, but at the time of homosapien's great migration out of Africa 50-60,000 years ago, Man was beating on drums, and tending goats. Those that stayed behind are still beating on drums and tending goats ... after 50,000 years. ( except for those we have introduced technology to ) Number 4. There is no 'we' in our present technological skill set. It was accomplished by .000000000001% ( approximately ) of homosapiens. The rest of us are just good at pulling the lever ... 99.99999999999% of homosapiens are clueless about how any of the things they use are made, or work. They are clueless about chemistry, or physics, or EM. I assume nothing of the kind. That would be your misinterpretation of the facts I have laid out. I must be at fault for not making myself clear. I am sorry. The goal is to survive. Period. Intelligenge is simply another 'tool'. Virtually every species that has existed has enjoyed existence far longer than us. Why would I consider them losers? They are incredibly successful. Intelligence is only valuable to us. Animals, and all other species couldn't care less. As far as 'late in the game', again you are assuming I think intelligence is the goal. The accurate word is 'incorrect'. And you are incorrect, too, I believe. Sorry. We are not looking for signals on a 'specific' wavelength. We are looking at about 500,000 wavelengths, soon to get boosted to around a billion. We have computers that can very effectively filter out the stars' radio output. They have no problem finding the 'needle in the haystack'. We have examined millions of stars, if not billions, and come up empty. When we aim our telescope at a given star group, there will either be a signal coming from that area, or there won't. There is no reason ( to my knowledge ) to linger for months on it. And that is what SETI knows too. Photons travel at 300,000 kps. If we can see a star, we can see any other photons that left at the same time. SETI has no intention of admitting the Drake Equation is screwed up. Frank Drake is the 'founder' of SETI, and very much active still. Seth lied for a reason. If you can't see it, I'm sorry. You must have memorized the Drake Equation. Another ridiculous assumption on Drake's part is that civilizations will 'kill themselves off'. So there will just be a tiny window of opportunity. Of course what kills off a species is ignorance. If conditions for survival become intolerable, the species either learns to adapt, or dies. Drake based his assumption on the failed societies of earth's history. What he ignored was that species ( and societies ) can be re-born. Over billions of years, if it happened once, it can ( and will ) happen again. Anyway, at the time he made this determination, we were in the middle of the 'cold war' where everyone who could was building bomb shelters and carrying out atomic bomb drills. ( DUCK AND COVER! ) All the ignorant people were quite certain that nuclear war was not only inevitable, but that it would very likely wipe all humanity off the face of the earth. Religion got very popular. Of course, technology is not centrally held. We could suffer very serious damage from anything now and survive as a species. Asteroid, or atom bomb, and humanity would stumble a little but that is all. It is ridiculous to think we will have killed ourselves off in the next 50,000 years ... or the next 50 million. The only thing that can truly stop us is the sun exploding, or getting turned inside out by an impacter. What you are failing to realize is that the numbers are beyond astronomical. Photons will bend around stars. If there is a signal to be had, we would detect it. And it is notable that Seth Shostak does not appear to share your view, or he might have mentioned it in the somewhat lengthy article I have referred to. I think it is on the SETI site. Instead, he deliberately made 'misleading' statements. He somehow forgot to mention the cursory search of millions of stars.

Technically, I am not sure if the Drake Equation qualifies as 'mathematical model', but there is no question it is seriously flawed. It assumes life will form from molecular combinations other than the ones that produce DNA. It also assumes all life will become radio-capable at some point. There is a mountain of evidence that DNA can be created from the basic building blocks that exist here, and apparently across the visible universe. There is no evidence that something other than DNA exists, other than a mathematical 'probability'. Homosapiens is a fortuitous accident. A lucky mutation, and extremely good timing. If the Drake Equation were to incorporate what we actually KNOW versus simply relying on what the mathematical 'models' say, we would find the potential number of intelligent species in our universe significantly lower. I think it's a safe bet we are the only intelligent life ( radio-capable ) in the MW. Hope I am wrong. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am non-theist. I have never taken another human's opinion as 'truth'. I will consider it, of course, but I also consider the 'source'. The possible agenda, or motivation of the person expressing the opinion, whether verbal, or in written form, or in any media. Believers, in my experience are seemingly incapable of rational logic. They make all reality a 'belief system'. I have been told I am satan's child. I have been told I can have 'no' morality. These statements of 'fact' are nothing more than silly, ignorant opinions, and have no basis in reality. I hope this does not offend anyone. I look at issues of morality from a standpoint of simple observation and logical conclusions. We all exist. We all want to exist. ( I am generalizing here ) We all experience the human condition. We suffer. We feel joy. We have hopes. My life is no more, or less important than any other. I don't see it as 'morality' to understand logically that it would be 'wrong' to do something to another that I would not want done to me. The only logical exception to the 'do no harm' rule is the exchange of ideas. This is bound to cause us discomfort at times, but it is necessary.

Valid point. Language is to all practical purposes exclusionary. Whether human or animal. However,on your point about the russian dog ... he will communicate with other dogs just fine, because he uses 'dog' language. But he will be required to learn simple english words to understand what the human in L.A. is telling him. Interestingly, if he is highly motivated ... by hunger, love, etc. he will learn those words rapidly ... All domesticated animals are 'bi-lingual'. Lol. In the case of your russian dog, he will be tri-lingual. I doubt he will ever forget the russian word for 'sit'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSpeaking of language, there are many ways humans convey information beyond the written, or spoken word. Case in point would be the Shakira black and white video 'No'. Truly a masterpiece. She beautifully and eloquently conveys her heartbreak, strength, and hope across all language barriers.

And sharks would seem to indicate that it does not. They have existed nearly unchanged for 350 million years. Our form, homosapiens, accomplished everything in 300,000 years. Neanderthal ( if I am not mistaken ) existed in various forms for possibly 500,000 years. I don't think there is much evidence that they went beyond crude tools, and crude social structures. It is important to remember that we have not 'invented' physics, or chemistry. The laws existed prior to us. So any species could have accomplished exactly what we have ... had they the cognitive ability to do so. But they found their niche, and that is as far as they got. Their evolution stopped 'cold'. And we have possibly as many as 7 billion species who existed prior to us ... many with up to hundreds of millions of years to achieve cognitive function equal or superior to ours ... and they did not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't think that is an accurate statement. We have a plethora of evidence to 'tell' in ... 1. our own fossil records ... 2. our observations of our solar system ... 3. our ( somewhat limited ) observations of the universe ... 4. our knowledge of chemistry and failed attempts to create life ... 5. and most notably, the deafening silence from SETI for 50 years. They fully expected ( unless they were lying - I was listening to their words with rapt attention 50 years ago ) to detect a signal in the first few years ... with their very primitive ( by today's standards ) technological abilities. The odds against ARE enormously large. It's a damn good thing there is so much real estate. And because of that I agree with you. The answer is almost certainly 'yes'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRegarding SETI: Not too long ago Seth Shostak ( in defense of SETI's lack of success ) made a disingenuous and deliberately misleading statement. ( at least in my opinion ) He said that we have " ... carefully examined less than 1000 stars." Key word ... 'carefully'. We have examined far more than that. Millions more. By the way, that is under 20 per year. At his rate we could look for several hundred thousands of years without any expectation of stumbling across 'intelligent, radio-capable life'. Additionally, he said that it was 'possible' that all those 'intelligent' species out there might be transmitting using much more sophisticated methods than we have the ability to detect. SUPER PHYSICS! Amusing that everyone else in the universe leaped from 'fire' to FTL technology .... I guess we are the stupid ones. The only half-way intelligent thing he said in the article was that "Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we need to re-think our assumptions. Maybe in another 40-50 years if we still haven't recieved a signal ...." I'm thinking .... maybe the time is now, Seth.

Sorry for butting in again. Zolar, I think you are not looking at all the evidence. You make the flawed but understandable assumption that because we have 'evolved' this far in (x) years, we will continue to do so over the next (x) number of years. And the evidence was clearly in front of you. You say that we are " ... just another species that evolved to inhabit our niche in the world." Yes, we are. And this is where it ends. In our niche. Just like bacteria, or viruses, or plankton, or t rex, or crocs, or birds, or ants, or squirrrels, or sharks, or, or ....... Let's look at sharks. I use them a lot to illustrate my point. We know they have existed virtually unchanged for around 350 million years. They have no technology. And they never will in that form. They are content in the evolutionary sense to cruise the oceans and kill stuff. It will never change as long as the oceans exist. They will never build radios. Ants will do the same. As long as they have no need to evolve further, they won't. Whether the 'mutations' simply stop, or mutated babies die immediately. I don't know. But ants are not going to build a radio. Ever. You may have not noticed something else. America is a perfect example. We are fast turning into a bunch of ignorant sloths glued to our tv's or computers, focused on nothing but the mundane. Check the different forums at facebook, or myspace ... or any number of sites. Look at the numbers of people on the goofy stuff, versus the number on serious. This site is an exception because it focuses on science. But compare numbers from this site to all the non-science sites. 50 million talking about ghosts and near death experiences and American Idol, and Tiger Woods ... and God. A few thousand talking serious science. You do the math .... The fact is, we are not the strong, and healthy DRIVEN men and women of our recent ancestors. The brave pioneers are dead. It is no longer survival of the fittest. It is survival of everyone, no matter how flawed. Our test scores continue to drop nationally, and school boards keep lowering the bar, no matter how much money is thrown into education. The joke is "No child left behind." A more accurate assessment is "EVERYONE left behind." You talk of cybernization as the next great 'evolutionary step'. I don't agree. Technological step, yes. It may make us think faster ... crunch bigger numbers ... and 'repair' damaged pieces ... and allow us to live longer ( hopefully, thousands of years longer ), but we will never be able to change the laws of physics. We will never develop into some 'super' race teleporting around the house, or the universe. We will never develop telkinesis or telepathy either because the real universe in which we live doesn't allow such things to occur. Should we develop technologies that allow electronic transmissions of our thoughts to machines or other humans, the situation will only worsen for us, as it will only make us lazier. We are now 'devolving'. Our race has found it's niche, entirely on the backs of about 1000 homosapiens ( out of maybe 100 billion so far ) .... and we will devolve until we no longer fit comfortably in our niche. Then that will cease ... and we will just 'cruise the ocean killing stuff'. Lol. For as long as we have a niche to exist in. Hopefully, if we are very lucky ... we will be as successful as the shark, and last for 350 million years in this form. So we ARE the peak of evolution. At least for this planet. Oh sure, we will invent lots of cool new things ... but none that violate physics. But this is not a bad thing. It's no worse than the sharks, or the ants. Life is good.

At the risk of annoying anyone, I would like to weigh in here. Mind? Last winter, when I was discussing my model with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( name thrown in to lend credibility ... lol ... but I actually was ) I made the comment that 'space was infinite'. His response was "It is assumed to be so, but we have no proof." My rebuttal ( roughly ) was "We have Einstein's math, corroborating experiments, and observations. Einstein said space is uniform, unless disturbed by mass. Logically it makes sense that our 'local' universe would exist in curved space because all that mass/gravity is curving it. But why would anyone think that space only exists for the pleasure of our 'local' universe?" He said ... "Because we can't see it. If we can't see it we cannot logically claim it to be fact. But, as I said, most scientists assume it to be so." ( infinite ) So at least Dr. Tyson and I agree in 'opinion'. Lol. But I think we have more than enough evidence to claim infinite space as a reasonable conclusion ... and a good part of a working model of the universe. It seems so clear to me. Space Is Uniform. That means it is 'the same'. Homogenous. Isotropic. I see infinity as a 3 dimensional straight-line grid with all lines extending to infinity. There is no shape, because shape has limits. I was 6 years old when I read this 'space is uniform' thing. I was very curious about the universe, and from what I already knew ... it seemed obvious that the universe would have no end. So Einstein's math just 'confirmed' what I already knew. It was a little distressing when I kept seeing 'the' universe described as a 'curved' finite structure. The very idea that space would simply cease to exist because 'our' local universe wasn't there to 'occupy' it seemed completely irrational. It assumed therefore that our little home was the only universe that has ever existed. That nothing else exists except for 'us'. That when we are gone, nothing will ever exist again. This isn't logic. This is religion. "We are special. We are here for a reason." "Oh really? Says who?" "Uhhhh. Well, 'we' do." "Ohhhhhh. Sure. I get it." Space is uniform. We can twist logic to placate our 300,000 year old ego, but it doesn't change the fact. We have mountains of evidence that space is uniform. Isotropic. None that space ends at our borders ... whether or not we can see it. Within our local universe, our straight lines are an illusion, because gravity is curving space. So to say we can go for infinity in a straight line yet never go beyond the finite bubble is also an illusion. The lines in our local universe aren't 'straight'. They just look straigtht. ( edit ) To take the weakest possible stance we can rationally and logically say ... "Infinite space is inferred, while finite space is not." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThousands of years ago, when Man began to seriously contemplate his universe, he wondered how big it was. There were a host of reasons to come to the conclusion that the 'physical universe' ... the one 'he' could see must be finite. Meta-physical? Not so finite. The ego gene was a great survival trait. We could plainly see that we were far superior creatures to all other species. A strong piece of evidence for our 'special' status. But the ego gene has it's drawbacks, too. It clouds reason, and allows us to formulate concepts ... like logic ... that we unconsciously shape to suit our desires. Now, many thousand of years later ... 'science' ( being less than a few hundred years old ) has royally decreed ... that our current scientific methodology is a 'perfect' tool for scientific inquiry. And we have never looked back. Why would we? Look how well it has worked! This logic is flawed, of course. Look how badly it has failed, too. The point I am trying to get across is ... we have never had a good reason to believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe, or that our universe is finite, or the only one. In fact, true logic ... unadulterated by ego ... says that if it's possible for us to exist, then it's equally possible 'we' ( and I do mean we. Exactly the same as us ) could exist other places. That other universes could exist in other places. There never WAS a good, scientific reason to believe that our universe was finite. We looked around us and just 'decreed' that it was. I mean, it had to be. Why else would we be here? There HAS to be a reason. We are so SPECIAL! Just Ego. Lol. When I was a kid, the 'universe was 'closed', like now. It consisted of the MW with around 250M to about 2B stars. There were maybe a 'few thousand' other galaxies, and a few things we couldn't identify. And science took the 'logical' stance that this could be 'all there was'. On the otherhand, there could be all kinds of 'anything is possible' stuff. As the universe threw it's arms open to us, we realized that our thinking was a mite small. And incorrect. Not only was it obviously bigger by several orders of magnitude, but all those 'possibilities' turned out to be non-existent. The universe was essentially the same wherever we looked. Just like it was when we looked 50 years ago ... when anything was possible. And even though we can see 'infinitely' farther than we could before, and found none of these fantastic 'possibilities' ... the mantra remains the same. ANYTHING is possible beyond our field of view. And here is the really amusing hypocrisy. We claim ( chaos theory, Heisenberg principle ) that anything is possible because the math says so. There's a CHANCE. Lol. Our universe has INFINITE possibilities. So all things can happen! Funny. How did you get infinite possibilities from a finite universe? It's past time we change our thinking. It's time to come to the rational conclusion that we exist in a finite, expanding bubble of gravity within a universe that is actually infinite ... until proven to be finite. Not the other way around. Moo, you said this is to be a debate, not a lecture. I hope I am not crossing the line. I just thought making some reasonable observations might be in order. I think all my statements have been truthful and accurate. Could be wrong, though. Lol. Wish I was more eloquent.

At the risk of annoying anyone, I would like to weigh in here. Mind? Last winter, when I was discussing my model with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ( name thrown in to lend credibility ... lol ... but I actually was ) I made the comment that 'space was infinite'. His response was "It is assumed to be so, but we have no proof." My rebuttal ( roughly ) was "We have Einstein's math, corroborating experiments, and observations. Einstein said space is uniform, unless disturbed by mass. Logically it makes sense that our 'local' universe would exist in curved space because all that mass/gravity is curving it. But why would anyone think that space only exists for the pleasure of our 'local' universe?" He said ... "Because we can't see it. If we can't see it we cannot logically claim it to be fact. But, as I said, most scientists assume it to be so." ( infinite ) So at least Dr. Tyson and I agree in 'opinion'. Lol. But I think we have more than enough evidence to claim infinite space as a reasonable conclusion ... and a good part of a working model of the universe. It seems so clear to me. Space Is Uniform. That means it is 'the same'. Homogenous. Isotropic. I see infinity as a 3 dimensional straight-line grid with all lines extending to infinity. There is no shape, because shape has limits. I was 6 years old when I read this 'space is uniform' thing. I was very curious about the universe, and from what I already knew ... it seemed obvious that the universe would have no end. So Einstein's math just 'confirmed' what I already knew. It was a little distressing when I kept seeing 'the' universe described as a 'curved' finite structure. The very idea that space would simply cease to exist because 'our' local universe wasn't there to 'occupy' it seemed completely irrational. It assumed therefore that our little home was the only universe that has ever existed. That nothing else exists except for 'us'. That when we are gone, nothing will ever exist again. This isn't logic. This is religion. "We are special. We are here for a reason." "Oh really? Says who?" "Uhhhh. Well, 'we' do." "Ohhhhhh. Sure. I get it." Space is uniform. We can twist logic to placate our 300,000 year old ego, but it doesn't change the fact. We have mountains of evidence that space is uniform. Isotropic. None that space ends at our borders ... whether or not we can see it. Within our local universe, our straight lines are an illusion, because gravity is curving space. So to say we can go for infinity in a straight line yet never go beyond the finite bubble is also an illusion. The lines in our local universe aren't 'straight'. They just look straigtht. ( edit ) To take the weakest possible stance we can rationally and logically say ... "Infinite space is inferred, while finite space is not." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThousands of years ago, when Man began to seriously contemplate his universe, he wondered how big it was. There were a host of reasons to come to the conclusion that the 'physical universe' ... the one 'he' could see must be finite. Meta-physical? Not so finite. The ego gene was a great survival trait. We could plainly see that we were far superior creatures to all other species. A strong piece of evidence for our 'special' status. But the ego gene has it's drawbacks, too. It clouds reason, and allows us to formulate concepts ... like logic ... that we unconsciously shape to suit our desires. Now, many thousand of years later ... 'science' ( being less than a few hundred years old ) has royally decreed ... that our current scientific methodology is a 'perfect' tool for scientific inquiry. And we have never looked back. Why would we? Look how well it has worked! This logic is flawed, of course. Look how badly it has failed, too. The point I am trying to get across is ... we have never had a good reason to believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe, or that our universe is finite, or the only one. In fact, true logic ... unadulterated by ego ... says that if it's possible for us to exist, then it's equally possible 'we' ( and I do mean we. Exactly the same as us ) could exist other places. That other universes could exist in other places. There never WAS a good, scientific reason to believe that our universe was finite. We looked around us and just 'decreed' that it was. I mean, it had to be. Why else would we be here? There HAS to be a reason. We are so SPECIAL! Just Ego. Lol. When I was a kid, the 'universe was 'closed', like now. It consisted of the MW with around 250M to about 2B stars. There were maybe a 'few thousand' other galaxies, and a few things we couldn't identify. And science took the 'logical' stance that this could be 'all there was'. On the otherhand, there could be all kinds of 'anything is possible' stuff. As the universe threw it's arms open to us, we realized that our thinking was a mite small. And incorrect. Not only was it obviously bigger by several orders of magnitude, but all those 'possibilities' turned out to be non-existent. The universe was essentially the same wherever we looked. Just like it was when we looked 50 years ago ... when anything was possible. And even though we can see 'infinitely' farther than we could before, and found none of these fantastic 'possibilities' ... the mantra remains the same. ANYTHING is possible beyond our field of view. And here is the really amusing hypocrisy. We claim ( chaos theory, Heisenberg principle ) that anything is possible because the math says so. There's a CHANCE. Lol. Our universe has INFINITE possibilities. So all things can happen! Funny. How did you get infinite possibilities from a finite universe? It's past time we change our thinking. It's time to come to the rational conclusion that we exist in a finite, expanding bubble of gravity within a universe that is actually infinite ... until proven to be finite. Not the other way around. Moo, you said this is to be a debate, not a lecture. I hope I am not crossing the line. I just thought making some reasonable observations might be in order. I think all my statements have been truthful and accurate. Could be wrong, though. Lol. Wish I was more eloquent.

Lol. Very good. Shall I plead artistic license? It doesn't have to be more massive than the sun to cause a reaction big enough to vaporize the nearby planets, does it? One thing I didn't catch here was the release of kinetic energy. Or is it impossible for it to be moving at 220 kps? Or am I just not understanding how kinetic energy is released? Would a neutron star work better? What would it look like as it approached our solar system? And are you telling me that if an object 20 times Jupiter's mass struck the sun at right angles to the sun's trajectory through the galactic arm ... coming in from the sun's north pole ... that this impact would simply be absorbed by the sun with little effect? Seems to defy logic. My logic, anyway. My bad logic assumed the Rogue would either have sufficient internal heat to burn off any atoms of hydrogen/helium as they were picked up. Or ... if that doesn't work ... if this is possible ... another way to accomplish the 'visual' would be for the hydrogen/helium ( and other gases ) to be held in liquid form ( 99.999999999% transparent? ) so the mirrorized nickel surface would reflect the stars back to the observer. The desire is to have this massive object appear invisible against the backround of stars ... except for it's perimeter. And thank you for the calculations. This is exactly the kind of help I need. It is my stated goal that all basic principles of physics be followed ... at least for the original story line. Later, it is acceptable to drift into physics 'theory' ... then later still ... fantasy. The 2 most important things are 1. The sun takes a big enough hit to vaporize the nearby planets, and 2. It is possible within the laws of physics ( the mechanism and sufficient fuel supply for that mechanism ) to spiral away from our sun and toward Alpha. Again, my more knowledgable friends, and my ex-NASA engineer neighbor told me that in 'theory' it is possible to move the Earth in this fashion. Are they all wrong? If you think that is true, then would you have an alternative way to move Earth out of the solar system? Within a 200 year time-frame? Or is it simply impossible? If you think it is impossible, please explain your reasoning. I would prefer not to concede to Moo just yet. Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo my understanding of relative mass is way off. Hmm. Ok. The sun is roughly 1000 times Jupiter's mass. My Rogue is at minimum 20 times Jupiter's mass. That makes the sun at most 50 times the mass of the Rogue. If your calculations were a little more precise ( lol ) we could possibly pare that down some. Does not the Rogue's compression seriously alter your calculations? Is it possible that the Rogue could be as high as 50 times Jupiter's mass? If it could be that high ( within the bounds of physics ) then the sun would be about 20 times more massive. The kinetic energy released is still bothering me, too. But even at your low estimate, even at 1/50th of the sun's mass wouldn't the impact have serious consequences? I guess I look at it like I look at impacters on Earth. Relatively small objects ( just a few meters in diameter ) travelling at much slower speeds ... say 16 kps ( around 58,000 kph ) cause some pretty serious reactions to our planet. I also look at the damage done to Jupiter from very tiny ( comparatively ) and relatively slow impacts ( Shoemaker-Levy ). As I recall, the astrophysicists were very surprised at the effect on Jupiter. Didn't they expect significantly less damage? When I compare the size ( mass ) of the S/L comet(s) to Jupiter, against the Rogue's mass to the sun's, it seems that the effect would be to ( at the very least ) cause a temporary expansion of the sun's outer atmosphere that would easily engulf the inner planets. Am I looking at this wrong? It would not surprise me if I was. Furthermore, the new, more massive sun, once it settled back down, would have a seriously deleterious effect on all objects that were in orbit prior to the collision. True? And how much mass would it require for the sun to go 'nova'?

Moo, I have a small confession to make. I know I said originally that I had written a short story about this. That was true. But I failed to mention that the story was just a fun side effect of my actual purpose. When Armageddon came out, I had a thought. What would we do if something way worse was going to happen? Thinking big, I thought .... well, everyone knows our sun will last another 3 billion years. So what would it take to change that? Then I thought of Orpheus. It's happened before. Why couldn't it happen again? Man thinks so small. Asteroids, and comets. But those are not the only things out there that will kill us. So it was really a mental exercise to see what the best possible solution was to Earth's impending ... very real, and total annihilation. If there was one at all ... I thought very long about the 'send the cream of the crop' scenario. I tried to be optimistic about humanities 'inherent?' altruism. But even if we sent 1 billion to Alpha, that leaves 6 billion behind to die. Families torn apart. Envy. Jealousy. Fear. Suspicion. Hatred. Our planet would dissolve into utter chaos. It just was not going to work. Maybe in the movies, but not real life. I thought of the logistical problems too, and they were just ridiculous. We would be sending hundreds if not thousands of rockets up every day. Think of the support network tens of thousands of 'space workers' would need. Where are you going to house all these workers? How are we going to feed them? And working in zero G? I don't think so. It would have to be that way in all likelihood until the outer hull is done. And I thought of the law of diminishing returns, and realized by the time our space-farers got to Alpha things would be pretty bad. And if there was nothing at Alpha ... we were screwed. Since the likelihood of a suitable planet was very slim ... as in extremely so ... the ship scenario just was not going to be a viable solution. So the only alternative was to move our whole planet. I set about to see if it would work. Not being a physicist, I had to ask questions of people I know who are relatively bright in that field. I studied underground 'cities' like Mt. Weather ( as much as I could anyway ). I watched the head of FEMA being interviewed in the 90s ( on CNN, I think ). He was asked about underground facilities that were in place around the country ( that had been built to survive a direct nuclear hit ) for the 'special' people in our country. Caught off guard by the question, he admitted they existed, and that the 'special' people all had access to these facilities. He said "We have given them a number to call in the event of nuclear attack." He was fired right after the program aired. When the cold war ended, that Russian site was opened up to inspection, because the Russian economy underwent implosion, and they were appealing to the American government ( as I recall ) for funding fot their underground 'nuclear facility'. I think it was CBS that went on a little train ride into the mountain. Cold and damp? Not at all. Beautifully lit ... totally modern. Quite astounding. I think 20,000 people went by train each day into the mountain from a city close by. One by one I went through the problems ... and soon realized that we could handle them all. Difficult to be sure ... but within our technological capabilities. My physics friends told me that my theory of speeding earth up would do what I thought it would. We are not locked in orbit. They wanted to know how I would propose to do this, and of course they said there would be a host of problems ... but they didn't think they were insurmountable. They were more concerned with the Moon than anything ... Lol. But they did say that we could escape from the Moon. Carefully. Actually ... when I told them how I planned to push Earth, they seemed a little blown away. They were not so sure we could build those hydrolasers at first ... but they decided it was not an insurmountable challenge either. Ok. Now I'm going back and address the points you made that are not coverd here ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes Pangloss. Quite familiar with it. Never really cared for it. I guess because I didn't care for Landau's eyes. Too weird. Lol. Wasn't it his wife, Barbara Bain who starred with him? I'm in my 50s. Moo! I am not enjoying this. You are making me work to prove my case. Lol. Ok. Maybe I enjoy it a little. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who is this 'you' you speak of? You are talking in abstract. There is no 'you'. There is 'we'. And we all have an opinion. And we all want to live. And we all are not going to like the selection process. And we all are going to do anything we can to survive. It's the most basic of human traits. Given a choice between trying to move our planet and dying or surviving together ... or sending a few 'lucky' ones to their very likely deaths while the rest of us CERTAINLY die .... I'm thinking the vote is going to come down heavily on moving the planet. But I'm sure there will be 7 million ( lol ) voting against it. Ok. Compare an unlimited supply of manpower, supplies, machinery, logistical support and genius transforming our planet into a stellar ship, to sending a few thousand up to work in zero g. Bet we finish our work before the space guys do. Don't you dare ask .... "Well, who's going to PAY for this?". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged At the speeds your ship will need to go ( or our planet ) one hit and your ship is gone. From something as small as a grapefruit. Think you can really out-maneuver every rock? Every chunk of ice? Never happen in a million years. Our planet will take hit after hit like that and do just fine. Easier to take care of? I'd much rather work under pressurized conditions, with normal gravity. Gonna take along a few spare ion drives? That will be fun replacing in space. What if there is an accident and you lose your fuel? Uh oh. But you will run out even if you don't lose it. We won't. Ever. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, me too. And I should point out that I am anti death penalty. But I think we have plenty of evidence in our histories that if the 'money people' go too far ... they end up dead. "Let Them Eat Bread". I think that is what M. A. actually said. Not cake. could be wrong. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmm. Just think. If we put all the world's military personnel on this. All the civil engineers. All the physicists. All the manufacturing facilities. All the rest of the world's work force. Seems to me they might be highly motivated to get the jobs done under budget, and ahead of schedule. Who says we don't have satellite communication? We will, and we will have back-up fiber optics too. Ever gone spelunking? Most of the time you are walking ... Lol. BTW. We won't be precluded from surface travel ... it will juist require more and more specialized vehicles. Ever driven on ice before? Got studded tires? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh so wrong. In fact, it would be better than when we began the journey. You think we hit the 'go' button, then crawl into our caves until we get there? Not a chance. We will all keep doing what we have been doing. Improving our habitations. Improving our technologies. Our EVERYTHING. Once the initial fear subsides ... and we are well on our way .... humanity will drift back to killing each other pretty much like we always have done. There will be wars. Squabbles big and small. But we will easily adapt as a species to living underground. Very easily. And whatever problems do arise, we have a whole planetful of willing workers. When we get to Alpha, the problem will be getting people to go back to the surface. The underground life will be the 'norm'. But it will happen in time ... especially when people keep coming down and telling everyone how beautifully rugged the earth is. There will be the hardy ones who want to live topside. And when we heat earth back up .... we will have plenty of atmosphere again. Landscape will have changed, of course ... but it will be a brand new world to explore, and enjoy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Moo, the only way we could 'lose our atmosphere' would be if we lost our gravity. It's not like it's going to be stripped from us. We will lose a little from our thrusters, but not much. A little more from impacters, but we are going to be accumulating mass the whole trip. We will place our lovely little planet in a perfect orbit that heats us up to just the right temp. We can control this. If we need to adjust, we will have the ability to do so. And you say 'it' won't be habitable. You mean the wonderful cities we have underground? ?????? Lol. The Earth will have a fresh 'skin'. Glacial action will have rearranged everything. But the new sun will heat us up. The oceans will get all toasty again. It will be quite spectacular. Sure it won't happen overnight ... but it will happen quickly ... relatively speaking. We will be out there planting stuff like mad. Letting animals loose. Birds. We will have retained genetic samples of species that died out, and re-birth them. Ever seen a salmon hatchery? Insects will do just fine, too. ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If we take our planet we live. Most of us. If we send a few in ships, it is extremely likely they don't survive the journey. And the rest of us died while the happy space farers were halfway across the gulf. What do you think it would do to their collective psyches to know that they abandoned the rest of humanity? And it is extremely likely they will not find a planet they can just immediately exploit. They will remain stuck in ships that are falling apart at the seams. Out of food. Out of air. Out of water. The odds of none of these scenarios coming true are ridiculously small. Ships suck. You have grown up thinking they are cool. They are. If you are a machine that can't 'die'. Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are incorrect, I believe. We don't need to leave the solar system in 1 or 2 orbits. If we have a 200 year 'heads up', and if we get it all done in say 50 years then we could take 150 orbits ( or more) to climb out of the solar system. Piece of cake ... Yes. Tidal forces. Not that big, though. We are not 'accelerating' in such a manner that our planet is torn asunder. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Cramped? Why? Only one underground 'digger' for the whole planet? How sad. Couldn't figure out how to build more machines? Ever see how big that underground site is in Nevada? I think it's Nevada. For the spent uranium? We have cool technology that will assist us in picking geologically sound areas to create the underground cities. Ventilation? You are joking, right? How do all those skyscrapers in New York do it? Think they keep all the windows open? We will have plants. We will be piping oxygen down. We will have a/c going to keep us cool. Carbon dioxide scrubbers. What chemicals? You mean the ones we live with every day, anyway? Awww. Poor baby. The animals will be just fine. We will recycle like mad. Very little will go to waste. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBattlestar Galactica is cool. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes. You are. Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am not concerned with 'keeping it warm'. It's own core temp is going to last an awfully long time. There is much going on inside Earth to keep the heat on. However, I you may be right about moving Earth. Want to figure out how much hydrogen it would take ... applied in the manner I have described ... to double our current velocity? And a rough guess as to how long it would take to do it? Remember, we are doing this just like ion drive. Very little thrust. Just very steadily applied. If we are on the planet, we can take as long as we need to get to Alpha. The most fuel efficient route ... If it took a few hundred ... or even a thousand years, that's fine.

One more. Moo, if we just sent say 7 million people on this journey to 'save' the human race ... and somebody ... ANYBODY ... took it upon himself or themselves to decide who gets to go and who gets to stay behind and face certain death .... there is going to be a big problem. You are leaving 1000 people behind for each person who gets to go. I can assure you, those 7 million aren't going anywhere. And if you think they could somehow 'trick' the remaining doomed people by withholding the truth ... that would be impossible. People will find out. This secret could never be kept. Guaranteed. Some people have a conscience. And some people would try to cheat the system. But the bottom line is ... we just ain't that altruistic. not even close. And the people who would have been left behind will slaughter every single one of those 7 million for trying to leave them behind to die. Think they won't? And your point about arriving at Alpha with a bum planet. It would be a 'bum' planet perfectly capable of continuing to support us. Did you know that there is rather strong evidence that earth was once a 'snowball' in the past? It recovered before. Certainly, we have had ice ages, have we not? And we will again. The caves will not be cold dark damp places. Good heavens. And we DON'T need the sun. We can create artificial sunlight. Come on. Grasping at straws ..... Every good thing that can be engineered into these habitats will be in play. How many live and work right now ... essentially underground? In your latitude, and mine, we get up in the dark. Go to work inside an artificially lit building. Get off work after dark. If we are lucky ... if it is not raining, or heavily overcast, we might get 10 minutes of sunlight. Doesn't seem to be killing us yet. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOf course, if your mind is already made up and you don't care to debate this anymore, just say the word .... Hope that's not the case. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMoo. Check this .... Yamantau: A Future Armageddon?// Viewzone http://www.viewzone.com/yamantau And read the Congressional record link.

Moo. You are killing me. Lol. I am going to make some dinner. Then I am going to logically rebutt all your points. You are in New York, so read it tomorrow. But if you guys would just come up with a 'scientific' reason this wouldn't work, then I will be happy to shut up. One quick point. I am sure you are aware that Earth does not maintain a 'steady' velocity in it's orbit around the sun. If I am not mistaken, tidal forces and our elliptical orbit speed us up and slow us down all the time. And did you feel a little queasy when we hit the winter solstace? That annoying 'tilt'. Bugs the hell out of me.

You are a very patient scientist. I like you already. But your response to our predicament is ( forgive me please ) not very rational. Please explain ( or calculate ) how many ships we would have to build to transport SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE! OMG! I'll try ... Let's see. How many could realistically fit on each ship? Shall we say ... 10,000? That means you have to build SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND SHIPS. Ooooops. WE need more ships. Unless we are not bring any animals with us. Triple it. Wait. We need to bring reserve supplies. Food. Water. You know we can not recycle 100% of these things. Close ... but we will lose some every year. How big must these ships be to carry 10,000 people safely? A mile or 2 in diameter? They will have to be huge rotating cylinders, since we must have artificial grav. How will we transport all the materials to space for these ships? Will we build them in space, or will we go to the Moon and build them there? I think I'd rather work in Antarctica. How are we going to transport all the aged, and infirm to these ships? Or do we just say ... "tough luck"? How about transporting all the animals? What about all the sea-life? To do it your way, we will have to build AT LEAST THREE MILLION ships at MINIMUM! Out in space! Yikes!!! What are the energy costs trying to lift that much mass OFF our planet? And you still have not dealt with the 'killer' radiation problem. Energised particles will rip through those ships as if they aren't there. I'm thinking some serious cancer levels, and mutations. For every biological creature. And again ... what if we get to Alpha ... nearly dead from lack of water ... horribly mutated from radiation ... and low on every resource .... and there's NO good planet to land on? What do we do then? I'm thinking ... die. Really, if you think the whole process through, buildng ships just is not 'realistic'. Not for a million 'lucky' lottery winners, or all 7 billion. Yes. You are absolutely right on one thing. Earth would not be very recognizable .... for a long, long time. But we will have learned by necessity to be much better stewards of our planet. We will have an extremely energy efficient society world wide. We will have learned to work together like never before. And we will still have all the resources of an entire planet. Yes. Lot's of people won't make it. But most will. Most species will survive, because we will be able to provide technological ways to help them. I understand this idea must seem crazy. But trying to move our entire population in ships is way crazier. I think this is more than a good show. I think it is the very possible future of Mankind. But ... of course ... if it's IMPOSSIBLE, then no point in trying. Have I made a good case here? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmmm. I guess you don't live on the salt water. Our planet is subject to quite severe tidal forces 24/7. You just don't pay attention, because it is 'normal'. We are not 'suddenly' accelerating. You would never feel a thing. No different than switching on your ion drive. Our planet would be subject to LESS tidal forces the farther we got from the Moon, and the rest of our solar system. We will never have to make any 'sudden' changes in direction. We couldn't if we wanted to. But we won't NEED to. We will have a million 'eyes' mapping out the best path on an on-going basis. Our changes will be well planned and very very slow. Remember, the worst effect on the mantle will be the thrusters. But they don't just have an on/off switch. They can apply thrust from zero to max, and anywhere in between. DEPENDANT on stresses on the crust, which will be monitored constantly. We will build fantastic futurized cities underground. Almost all the comforts of home. Never have a shortage of ANYTHING. Just no real sky to look at. Each 'city' could have a light source that tracks across the ceiling, approximating the sun's movements. You would be very surprised how quickly we would get used to this. We could have a 'virtual' Moon, and stars too. We can build all this stuff right now if we wanted to. Ever look at a diamond screen at a football game? No more monsoons killing people. No more hurricanes. No more starving people dropping like flies. Excellent health care and controlled immunizations. Sports. Academics. Tv. Movies. Internet. Hot rod mag-lev cars. Lol. But probably less flying, and no more ocean cruises. Sort of. We could still cruise the oceans in submarines. I live on the water ( Puget Sound ) in a house I designed and built in 1995. I would miss it terribly. But I would not have the slightest qualms about embarking on this fantastic journey! Maybe I could rate a little ( underground ) lakeside cottage ... Lol. I know. I'm out of my mind, right? It's ok. I understand.

Please define 'completely realistic'. Do you mean 'physically impossible'? Or just a serious challenge? Do I violate any laws? Am I forgetting something basic? Hydrogen is a bad propellent? Can't extract the hydrogen? Can't pipe oxygen underground? Can't increase Earth's orbital velocity? Can't slowly pick our way out of the solar system? Lol. Anyway, thank you ... I think. I didn't intend to make a federal case out of this. I only mentioned it because of Genecks 'tag line'. But you kind of invited me to elaborate, so I did. And apparently caused a bit of a stir. So as long as I am here, and this IS a science forum, why don't you all apply your actual knowlege to this project and tell me why it is 'impossible'. Or do a few of you think you already have? I'm guessing this has never occurred to any of you before. ( And why would such a stupid idea ever occur to us? ) But you never know what may be heading our way someday, and it might be a good idea to decide if things got desperate enough, we could actually have this as a last-ditch option .... These questions are not so important but ... Rogue planet could never take out the sun? Or us? Rogue itself 'impossible'? Seriously ... take it apart. And let's see if I can properly defend it. If my story ever gets off the ground, I want it to follow science to the 'T' if possible. I am not convinced on the amount of energy someone thinks is required. I think he was thinking in terms of turning Earth toward Alpha's expected position and 'blasting off'! I really think all it takes is a slight increase in velocity. I also think that we would essentially spiral north of the plane of the ecliptic ... still in orbit around the sun, but each successive orbit would take us farther, and farther away. Am I wrong? Could we not 'gently' tilt Earth with our hydrolasers? Slowly steer our our palnet? Strictly from a cinematic viewpoint, by the way, Earth would be an incredible site from space. And on the surface of the southern hemisphere. A total snowball, the intense blue lasers would light up the ice of the southern hemisphere .... The northern hemisphere would be in shadow, of course ... only faintly lit through photons refracting through our dense atmosphere. Picture it from the Moon ... And working around the lasers would be like being on an inhospitable alien world. Harsh, but beautiful. How impressive would 3000 mile-high pyramids look? No doubt the vibrations would be pretty serious, but of course, the hydrolasers could be shut down for maintenance. The lasers would be a brilliant green 500 foot diameter beam reaching into space ... then turning cobalt blue as the hydrogen is injected. Makes for a spectacular visual, don't you think? Anyway, if you are already tired of this 'mental exercise', it's cool. Thank you all again for your interest, though. At least, I might have given you something new to think about!

I have never tried to calculate it. I couldn't if I wanted to. I describe it as a castoff from 2 colliding stars. 3x Jupiter's diameter, and comprised entirely of iron and nickel ... the nickel being the outer layer. It is lighter, isn't it? Gravity has crushed it to a near perfect sphere. It's atmosphere ( if it has any ) would be about a billionth of a meter in thickness. My sincere apologies for not having the skills to calculate its mass. Anyway, this object does not contain the correct chemicals to radiate anything but infrared. It does not have the mass to collapse further. My offhand guess is it actually exceeds the sun's mass. Maybe several times the sun's mass. My goal was to make it beautiful, mysterious, and deadly. And it had to be massive enough to take out our sun and give us no other reasonable alternative but to try moving Earth ... Incidentally, it was discovered ( of course ) entirely by accident. Rather traumatizing for the young astronomer at Mt. Palomar .... So do you hate this too? Lol. More to the point ... does this ( any of it ) violate physics? Well, maybe Mooey still likes the idea.

Ouch! I think our thrust engines ( 3000 ) would exert more constant force on our planet than a tiny asteroid. And if I am not mistaken, this forum is 'speculations'. I have not interjected anything magical, metaphysical, or supernatural into this endeavor. Don't like geothermal? Ok. Let's go nuclear then. Each pyramid gets it's own powerplant. Can you think of a fuel that would be better ( or less polluting ) than hydrogen? Are you suggesting that lasers can't excite hydrogen atoms? By the way, my story was copywritten with the Library of Congress in 1999, and registered with WGA-W in the same year ( #761682 ), which predates Larry Niven by a few years. I did a lot of searching to find a similar story and found none. I suppose it's possible that someone did prior to me, though. I don't want to come across as appearing grandiose.

Wow. You seem to be kind of angry about this. Sorry to upset you. It's not my fault our sun is going to blow up! Lol. Ok. One thing at a time. I have no doubt your calculations are correct, but correct for what? Launching Earth like a rocket? Ion Drive ( Cassini? ) produces a nearly negligable thrust, but it is continuous. Are you suggesting that Earth's velocity can not be increased? We can apply that much 'force' against our planet, and NOTHING will happen? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Isn't this a basic tenet of physics? Hmmm. Exhaust. Well, hydrogen atoms will leave our pyramids at pretty extreme velocities. I am kind of hoping we will get a lot of them back. Don't really want to blow off our whole atmosphere. We are not fusing them into helium, thankfully. Thrust per acceleration. Nope. Can you figure that out for me? As far as earthquakes go .... certainly we will cause them. Big ones. In fact, we just might lose an underground city or two. But maybe you didn't read the part about millions of sensors planted around ( and in ) the earth. Monitored in real time by computers, the pyramids would constantly be adjusting thrust to prevent causing total collapse of our crust. And I am going to take a guess and say that our engineers will be doing their best to create suitable new 'building codes' for the underground cities. Don't we know how to make structures that can withstand serious earthquakes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmmm. You seem a little upset, too. Do we already have these machines? No. Could we build them? I think so. Do we already have laser technology? Do we know what hydrogen atoms will do when excited? Do we know how to deal with extreme heat? Do we have super-computers? Do we have motion sensors? I never suggested this would not be a challenge ... but how does any of it violate laws of physics, motion, and gravity? Are you suggesting that we are not bright enough to calculate the best path for our exit from the solar system? Or tough enough to build these pyramids on the antarctic continent? Would it be better if we just sat here and waited to die? At least working on this project would give humanity hope ... And really, astrophysicists have theorized about changing our orbit by shuffling asteroids around and using their meager gravity to accomplish it. I don't think it's 'impossible' at all to increase our orbital speed. But it will take longer than 8 minutes to do it. But I guess you think it's a terrible idea. I am sorry for offending you. Shoot. I was kind of proud to be the first guy in the history of Man to write a story about moving our planet to another star. *sigh* So much for having an original thought. My bad.

Perhaps I do have misconceptions about radar. Ok. What would you suggest as a good alternative? Or is there no way to detect potential EI's ( Earth impacters )? Next question. Can't computers do the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to plotting trajectories? Did I forget to mention the velocity of Williams Rogue? Let's call it 220 Km/sec. I think there is going to be some serious kinetic energy released. Yes ... things would settle down after a few million ( or billion ) years. But I suspect that the entire solar sysyem will take a rather large hit from this impact. This object is going to knock the sun off it's galactic path. Maybe the outer planets will survive this, but I doubt it. Earth most certainly would be initially reduced to a loose pile of rubble ( at best ). Sure, things would settle down here, too. But I don't think even bacteria deep in the Earth would survive this one. And most certainly our orbits would all be affected by a sun with almost double it's original mass and accompanying gravity. This would not be a pretty thing to watch. Well, it would be if we were at a safe distance. Lol. Not to give plot lines away ( as if I haven't already ), but even with all our efforts .... and our planet being beyond Pluto's orbit when this happens ... we are still going to suffer some serious damage. The story wouldn't be much fun if bad things didn't happen ... ( both macro, and micro scales )

Lol. First, it's not a 'stretch'. It is within our technological ability. Everything I have suggested can be done ... now. Second, I don't think you are visualizing this fully. Those pyramids are CONTROLLED. We can actually ( if not slowly ) STEER Earth. Third. We will turn our planet around and approach Alpha BACKWARDS using our mighty thrusters to slow us to the exact vector necessary to get 'caught' by the star. It will work just fine. And thank you very much. If you would please get a campaign going and bombard Goepp Circle Productions with 'fan mail', maybe they will get off their asses and help me finish the screen play. Lol. Just kidding. But I have to say I am very disapponted in myself. I came up with this great idea, and fell on my butt. You have no idea how hard it is to get an original story in front of people like this. ( Thank you for contacting us, but we can NOT even look at your submission due to copyright laws ... Thank you for considering our production company and good luck with your story .... whatever it is .... because we didn't look. ) Lol. Frakes told me ( through his assistant Daisy ) that if they liked the script as much as the treatment, he would go to bat for me with Paramount. They also thought it would make a great series, and asked me for 2 years of future episodes ( thumbnails ). I have that and a lot more. But they were not willing to spend a half million to hire a good screenwriter. *sigh* Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS: The planet is already moving. We are just going to move it somewhere else! ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk Mooey. I start out my story as a 'real life' - real science adventure. I have a retired NASA engineer for a neighbor, and he loved the story, too. Couldn't find serious fault, but didn't really want to go to Alpha ... Lol. Later in the story ... a few decades in the future, ( and by the way, this story is like "Law and Order". We could have several different series going simultaneously, following different characters ) as we head out of the solar system we make a rather amazing discovery. 50 miles down, as we continue to increase our underground living space, we come across an artifact imbedded in the Earth's crust. A very special building, actually. As it turns out, we were not the original inhabitants of this planet. This building was a calling card from the race who used to live on Earth. The kicker? Earth wasn't native to our sun, either. They moved it. When their sun was dying. They lived under this 'new' sun for a few hundred thousand years ... and ended up abandoning Earth for reasons unknown .... long before Earth was struck by Orpheus ... But they left a treasure trove of technology for whoever found it. And this will change everything we know about ourselves ... the universe .... and where we end up going. Like it? No?

Anyway, you may have forgotten the original premise in all this excitement. Our sun is going to take a direct, unavoidable hit. We can't stop this thing because it's real! And magic ISN'T! Lol. Rogue planets exist. Our sun could be in the path of one right this minute. 2-300 years down the road. We have no idea if something is on it's way toward us. Didn't Orpheus whack us 4 billion years ago? Isn't this why we have the Moon? So when the sun blows ... Earth gets blown to smitheroons with it. So let's build an interstellar ship. Ok. How many people we going to fit on this ship? 7 billion? I don't think that will be feasible. 1 million? Wow! Big ship, considering all the stuff we'd have to take with us to survive. So how are we going to choose who gets to go? Lottery? No. I think all us lessor folk would have to 'bite the bullet'. For the 'Good of Humanity'. They'd pick the best of humanity to start our new life at another star. And I suspect the WORST of humanity would make damn sure that the ship never left orbit. By the way .... what are you going to do when you get to Alpha, and you find there is no planet suited for human habitat? Terraform it? Doesn't seem very likely. Unless you want to hang out for another 10,000 years on the ship waiting for the planet to become fit for habitation. So maybe you should just head on to the next closest star. It's only about 6 light years farther out. So why do you want to leave a perfectly good planet behind? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmmm. Ever heard of radar? No light needed. Yes, I realize this is a bit hard to grasp. I'm sure you have never thought of Earth as an actual spaceship. But you of all people should know. IT'S A SPACE SHIP NOW! Stuff hits us constantly. Our magnetic field, and atmosphere do a fantastic job of protecting us. Where do you think we will build these undergound cities? Certainly NOT on the northern hemisphere. The sun exploding will VAPORIZE Earth. That will undoubtably kill us off ... lol. I won't lie to you. Earth is going to take some serious hits on the way. Millions ... perhaps BILLIONS will die from massive cave-ins. But our species will not lose it's technical knowledge. We are at a unique moment on our development. We ACTUALLY have the technical ability to do just what I am suggesting. Now what do you prefer? Total annihilation? Or a rough journey? I'll take the rough journey hands down. Anyay, using radar, and high powered lasers, we can nudge those bad boys out of our way. That will be much easier than trying to change vectors every 2 days. The objects that are big enough to turn Earth completely inside out , we will nudge ourselves out of harms way. Also, space thins out rather nicely outside the Oort Cloud. There will be little to cause us concern until we approach Alpha. I hope I am not annoying you. You seem rather nice. Merry Christmas.