# Is it possible to make the earth go farther from sun and so make the planet cooler?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by pluto2, Mar 24, 2008.

1. ### draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
OMG....I just had another idea...and its majestic...

3. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
There's a reason we don't see so many solar panels in use. They just often don't do the job so well as other alternatives.

Isn't that an awfully massive project? Maybe we can get some massive numbers of cheap laborers from China, to build it for us?

Actually, I recently read some posting, perhaps on this forum board somewhere, that carbon nanatubes conduct electricity, and so can catch on fire, at a lightning strike.

I rather like the more preliminary idea, of building a space elevator, which supposedly might be supported by a tether between land or a ship, and a satelite in orbit to pull it tight. We could launch so much more stuff into orbit, build our fancy space stations or rocket up in outer space, so much cheaper, with such a tool to escape Earth's gravity well. But I have yet to see the calculations proving that carbon nanotubes can be made weight-efficient enough, to not snap under their own weight. And will they hold up to wind and lightning? I think it was an episode of Star Trek TNG which depicted a space elevator.

How would we bit sitting in darkness anyway? If the solar panels are "pulling," then they must be beyond the earth, not able to cast shadows upon the earth. You can't "push" upon a rope, only pull. And these solar panels may be so far out, as to minimize this supposed shading effect, as I already explained there may not be any to begin with.

Also, I don't think the photon pressure would be near enough. The momentum of the earth rotating, and its orbit going around the sun, is a tremendous amount of energy, the earth's rotation driving a lot of the tides and internal heating and weather of our planet. And it's running down. The rotation of the earth is slowing as a result, but the energy involved is so tremendous, the slowdown is so slight, as to only be detectable by very accurate measurements/instruments.

5. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
"If anything's going to cause global warming, it's all the hot air coming from Congress."

Maybe we could just get them, to stop?

Possibilities could be a place to begin, but why?

There's so many more worthy projects instead, that we could turn into costly boondoggles.

7. ### AsguardKiss my dark sideValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,049
because thats what the OP asked for. Thats the only reason i thought about it, my prioties would be increasing health care expenditure rather than building a rocket to move the earth

8. ### draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
actually they do the job...thats why ISS got them as wings on its shoulders. And many satellites got them too, they open and unwind once ejected from a rocket.

9. ### draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
moving Earth is kind of stupid anyways...we need to explore other planets/moons..

10. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
Why use solar, when you can just plug it in?

Solar doesn't do the job so well, on Earth. Out in outer space, it's another story. What else is there, but solar and nuclear reactor? Didn't the Voyager probe use nuclear?, because out beyond Mars, there's just not enough sunlight anymore.

You can't just "burn something" in outer space, because the oxygen would be too costly and bulky to bring.

But where do we see solar on Earth? Dual-power calculators? Yeah, after the battery went dead, I had to be in some pretty good light, to not have display fading out on me. Or someplace slightly remote, where a handy wire to plug up to the electrical power station grid, isn't so handy.

It's kind of interesting, how differently the computers on robots to probe Mars, are programmed, than computers on earth. They are designed to automatically reboot themselves, in the event that they crash. (There's software tricks, to detect when a crash has occured. I think one common method, is to set an interupting timer, to do some sort of "reset," at some short time inverval in the future, according to its clock, and then have the software as it cycles its normal functions, just keep bumping forward the interupt scheduled time. In the event of a crash, then the interupt or alarm finally goes off, logs a fault report/code, and does an automatic reboot.) The software needs to be a bit more "independent" at resolving its problems, because there's nobody there, to push a handy "reset" button. I recall hearing something, of a problem on some robot rover probe, that it kept constantly rebooting. Turned out that the flash memory was too full, and some files had to be deleted. Yeah, it can be reprogrammed remotely from Earth, but only if the computer can run long enough to aim its attennas properly, and establish its data links with Earth.

11. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
Oh I don't know about that. I would much rather drive my house (or planet) down the road, then I wouldn't need to pack for a trip. But where can I find a road big enough to drive my house down it? Bummer. And with the ridiculously high gasoline price-gouging. Maybe I had better drive something a tad smaller?

That's one reason I want a spaceship for Christmas. My spaceship could be "my house," and then I wouldn't need to pack. I wouldn't end up forgetting to bring something, too late to go back and get it. I wouldn't need an airplane either. I could just fly my spaceship, to anywhere I want to go. And if it's big enough, I could even have "cargo bays" and "shuttlecraft" as well.

Spaceships could so well, take the place of RVs today.

I can just see it now. A scenic campground full of little spaceships. Now that would be cool!

Last edited: Mar 27, 2008
12. ### draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
it will be achieved in a future....far future.

13. ### XeliosWe're setting you adrift idiotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,447
Ok Pronatalist, how about a little imagination experiment? Lets say you and 500 other people are shipwrecked on an island that's 20km long and 10km wide. There's no hope of rescue and no contact with the outside world. You build yourselves a little community on this island, complete with agriculture and sanitation and medication and so on. Now since you're all devout "breeders" you start having children like crazy. Every couple having 4 or 5 children, 'naturally'. Within 30 years your population has grown to 1000. 30 years after that it's 2000. 30 years more and it's 4000. But it's no problem right? Any amount of growth is sustainable so long as you try hard enough, right?

So another 30 years go by and your population is at 8000, then 16,000, then 32,000, all packed onto an island 20km long and 10km across. Sure, you can fit them on the island, but how are going to feed them? Remember, you're cut off, and you can't leave the island.

This is as far as I'll go, it's obvious you're oblivious to the limitations of this planet. The Bible says rape and pillage what you want of the Earth, breed and be merry, so that's what you'll do regardless. That seems to be your definition of 'natural' as well: what God said. I can only hope somewhere down the line you people will get your own little island, where you can do as you like, and we'll see how long that utopia of yours lasts.

Last edited: Mar 27, 2008
14. ### SciencelovahRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,349
wait.. wait..

are you sure?

I know that gravity is proportional to multiplication of
mass of each corresponding objects, but why does Jupiter and Saturn, for
example, which are heavier than earth (jupiter mass = 317 x earth mass) are
located farther from the sun than the earth?

15. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
Let babies go on pushing out naturally, no matter how numerous we may eventually become.

There's a flaw in your imagination experiment. Yeah, I would advocate "packing" 32,000 people onto little islands and all that, as all those people have to live somewhere. But I have no desire to repeat some stupid mythical "Easter Island" experiment, which I think what happened to the people wasn't "overpopulation" at all, but some sort of warfare or religious cult sort of destruction. Such a small island, I don't think has the "critical mass" of people, to be populated to its full potential. To build an island properly, that may eventually become some sort of "solid city" as the human population flow naturally and unhindered, requires materials and technology "from the outside." As all the empty fields around where people could go to defecate become filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see, the need for indoor toilets and pumbing increases. As I heard on some PBS environmental something or other TV show, "It's not smart to poop in your drinking water." Now on an island so small, it's probably not necessary to actually treat the raw sewage, but merely to take it underground through pipes, to the ocean, to keep it from contaminating the drinking water. Then it simply does not matter, the naturally growing number of human assholes pushing it out.

Even though the Philippines country is already populated to about a person an acre, as dense with people as India, I agree with the Philippines pro-life forum that I frequent, that people should welcome their children and not use any means of "birth control." And similar with the "crowded" island of Indonesia, Java. Let people "overflow" and move to other islands, if they wish. It's okay to let big or small islands grow naturally more "crowded," because they obviously do have the means of importing stuff and technology from outside, substantially increasing their effective "critical mass" so that they can adapt. Some Philippines prime minister I think it was, who I think was pro-life or Catholic, said that she was not worried about the growing population, because the rest of the world is growing too, so it will be okay. That's far more wise than people give it credit for. It might be a problem, is the entire world was but their island. How long until they are so numerous, that they are populating themselves off the island? But as the rest of the world has this same "natural increase" challenge too, they can reasonably expect to be able to import technology as to how to build housing buildings taller and safer, how to produce more food on less land or be able to buy or import food and materials, and so the "critical mass" of intelligence and options to ADAPT is so much greater. So I say, go ahead and people keep on breeding naturally in the most heavily populated regions of the world. The way the technology's going right now, I don't see it moving much towards colonizing more worlds. But rather towards populating this one more and more densely. An island may be too small, but maybe it takes the whole planet to hold us all. So let's use the whole planet, more to it's potential, and go on obeying God and welcoming our numbers to go on rising as God would allow.

On Star Trek TNG, they had an example something like that, and it wasn't of the sort you might think. Some people had crashlanded on some planet, and found they could live there, and since they couldn't escape, and I think the misfortune had set their technology back quite a bit, such that they had no contraceptives nor any perceived need for contraceptives, they had indeed "bred like crazy." Oh, their numbers were still quite small compared to the size of the planet, but had became, as I might observe, "embarassingly big," when some aliens claimed the planet as one of their own, and for their own colonization. Seems the transporter was impaired by some harsh radiation of some sort in the atmosphere, and everything they tried beaming, came back distorted. Containers came back in a different shape, so they couldn't try beaming any people. They never could seem to get the transporters working quite right, with all their attempts to adjust parameters and compensate. The aliens were not willing to "share" but would remove the human "infestation." Of course, Captain Piccard, being a "good guy," struggled to find the proper moral solution. The aliens wanted their planet cleared in 3 days. But the 70 or so people, had multiplied in around a century or so, to 12,000, was it? And the spaceship was designed for a crew of around a thousand? While they could hold so many people on the spaceship, that spaceship wasn't designed to land on planets, and their shuttlecraft would take 3 weeks to evacuate so many people. Finally, Piccard's crew found a handy "loophole" in the alien law or treaty or whatever. He could choose whichever arbitrators that he wanted. So he choose some aliens who were in hibernation, and wouldn't come out of it, for 3 months. "Now can I have my 3 weeks?" He got it, and the poor aliens had to remain couped up in their spaceship for an extra 3 weeks, because some humans apparently wouldn't or couldn't, "control" their "natural increase" and became so numerous.

Anyway, my point in retelling that story, is that failure of humans to "control" their fertility, need not at all be life-threatening, but perhaps just "mildly inconvenient," a tad "embarassing" at times, or merely involve some relatively minor "growing pains," but a small price to pay for so many more people to be able to experience life.

I recall reading somewhere, some article in which some "family planning" worker describes what she sees in some third world village, or something or other. Looking at some mother walking along. A baby on her back, a baby inside her belly, and another toddler trailing behind. Ping! Ping! Ping! Why is the author of this article, so critical of people breeding naturally, allowing all the more precious, sacred people to come to life? The natural outlet for powerful human reproductive urges, is reproduction. I believe more of the world should still be like that, welcoming human life to flow and spread naturally. We should be more like that. One of my favorite large family comebacks, I saw on some website, was "Haven't you had that baby yet?" "Yeah, this is the next one." See if that doesn't make their jaw drop. What might future generations want? How about to find the door to life, wide open when it's their turn to be born? How about parents who love their children so much, that they purposely don't use any means of "birth control," as more children are always welcome. How about a world that once again welcomes babies to happen as they happen. What if more people were still reproducing like that? Respecting nature and human life and the natural function of the body, and just letting babies flow out naturally. Letting baby booms long persist and spread throughout the world naturally. Letting countries enjoy having "youthful" or rapidly-growing populations, and counting it towards the greater good of the many and "progress." Wouldn't there be more love in the world? Might not the world be more family-friendly? Oh, but the "educated beyond their intelligence" like to complicate the issue, by pointing out the obvious, that the villages are growing larger, and the space in between them is shrinking. Well what part of Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, did we not understand of God's commandment to people? I think that's what's supposed to be happening. The planet isn't getting any bigger as they say, so the population density has to rise naturally as well.

In the movie "Dragnet," a Tom Hanks movie, P.A.G.A.N. was defined as "People Against Goodness And Normalcy." Curious definition, as that's rather how I see the "family planner" pushers. People come equipped with reproductive systems, that ought to be producing babies, just like how their hearts should be beating. I do not believe in "earth control," I do not believe in poisoning and hindering the natural function of the womb. If some mothers can push out baby after baby, more power to them.

But I wouldn't "confine" multiplying people to a single island, but encourage the cooperation of the entire planet, to adapt to our rising population levels. I don't think we can have so many people around, without making a few natural changes, of the sort that people would want anyway. Say like toilets and modern clean cooking stoves and refrigerators in people's homes. If people can't or won't control their fertility, the answer ought to be clear. Alter the planet to be more densely settled by humans. And although I happen to live in the big city, I see nothing keeping me from enjoying having a big family, other than a wayward society not so kind as it could be, towards encouraging big families, and family-friendly economics and tax-relief.

I am quite educated, but I don't see human population so negatively as the liberal biased "educated" people tend to see it. People recently have been depopulating the countryside to move to crowded cities, in search of jobs, excitement, shopping malls or concerts, sports, etc. I would see it as so cool, for people to move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities, because there's getting to be so many of us. People in the big cities should be encouraged to have big families, and people in the countryside should be encouraged to have big families. Let cities grow larger, and let new cities and towns spontaneously arise in the more rural areas, as human numbers rise there as well. As technologies get cleaner, and people find more options, cities can in fact, become bigger and closer together than ever before. At least some people seem to have the right idea.

"The world is getting smaller. Smell better." an old Hugo cologne commercial

16. ### XeliosWe're setting you adrift idiotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,447
It's too bad you spent so much time writing all that, because you completely missed the point.

17. ### PronatalistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
750
The world as an "island," is such a woefully inadequate metaphor. It just doesn't work out the same.

But did you even read (carefully) what I wrote?, for if you did, you might see that I do understand your point.

Supposedly Thomas Malthus said that somebody must die, to make room for each birth. Why? Isn't there a far better alternative, that most of the world seems to have found? What if people don't want to wait "until hell freezes over," for the population level to dip a tad, if ever, for them to have their precious darling babies? What if they keep on birthing their babies regardless? The obvious alternative, is to advocate population accumulation. By letting human populations naturally densify and spread to wherever they yet can, so many more people can somehow fit upon the planet. There can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Isn't that sort of what people are really saying, when they say that there's places all around where we can put more people? If so many breeders want to say that, why wouldn't I say "Well have at it then?" I agree. How can one argue against such an obvious pro-life point? I want to be free to have a naturally large family, and I want the same for my children, and population "control" isn't the answer for that, but rather, promoting a more pronatalist society, one that continues to naturally grow and fosters its own growth, although it be supposedly "huge" in numbers already.

I agree that by itself, an island may find itself "too small" for so many people. But in a world that is also growing, it's reasonable that such islands can expect to import some level of technology and resources, to aid in them exploring how to populate themselves denser and denser. And I want to encourage the various lands of the world to populate denser, as it helps them do their part, especially via their own natural increase—their very own children, to help the planet absorb and hold more people. So I agree that The Philippines, India, or wherever, have every right to populate themselves ever denser with their own progeny. I want them to do so, as I want to see the beauty of the human race naturally "blossoming" in size. It's sort of like a baby growing in the womb. What option does such baby have, but to go on growing, outgrow the womb, and thus "trigger" its birth. For a world that has never seen such a global "birth," how would we know just how big the human race must get, before "birth" into a new era, sets in?

I did a few quick mental calculations, and if I got it right, 10 km * 20 km / 2.6 km^2/miles^2, your example is approaching around 500 people per square mile, or nearly a person for every acre of land. Some countries are naturally growing beyond this level already. But filling an "empty planet" is but one of the numerous reasons why people might want to have children. If it's no longer so much relevant, supposedly, what of the other 99 great reasons to have children, that usually have little or nothing to do with overall population size? But when I say that I am against imposing some unnatural arbitrary "cap" on world population size, that's what I mean. Let the world "pregnancy" swell naturally and proudly. I don't believe in such top-heavy governance, nor in so disparaging human life. Have you so little appreciation for the wonders of life? Is that what "modern" education has brought us? Lack of imagination, cynicism, no respect for some of "the old ways" or tradition?

There's the example in the "Left Behind" series of books. According to the dramaticized CD version, as I decided to skip the book, as I have so many books and magazines to read already, the Anti-Christ (to arise in the future according to Bible prophecy) scolded the developing countries for letting their populations "balloon" in size. Yeah, sounds like an "anti-christ" sort of thing to do. Conversely, what's the kind or humane thing to do? Just that. Let the nations "balloon" in population size. How else are people to enjoy having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? If I was king of some country, I wouldn't have the heart to lie and deceive to rob people of their children. So they want to breed, let them. I would have many children too, if God allows me to.

There's these conspiracy theories running around, probably with suitable evidence to back them up, that certain power-mad globalists, want to set up ridiculously huge human-free zones, supposedly to restore our "balance" with nature. Coup people up in certain populous zones, well unless they can come up with some barbaric scheme that they can get away with for "population reduction," beyond the rampant contraceptive pushing that they have duped us with so far. But is that really realistic in a world that may be naturally transforming from having people being able to live "anywhere" to perhaps increasingly "everywhere?" No, I don't see it that way at all. I am pro-life, and I don't like to see human life being trivialized, marginalized, and disparaged. Even nature seeks to spread life to fill most every niche, perhaps even more so with intelligent human life. If world population is supposedly naturally growing so "huge," then that should mean that it may in fact take the entire planet just to hold us all, so I must vehemently oppose "human free" zones and such, as I care much about the prospering of my kind. Population "control" is like the ultimately way of suppressing people into "slavery." That they don't even have the basic rights/duties to have and raise their own children. What of the virtues of self-control? It's not just about self-control, but responsibility for making decisions and the sovereignity and dignity of individuals and families. I don't believe in top-heavy governance, but in asking people to take more responsibility for their actions and how it is that they will prosper.

Consider this verse in the Bible, as I see it as very relevant to the population issue and how we ought to regard it:

"In the multitude of people is the king's honour; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince." Proverbs 14:28 KJV

What could it mean? Well certainly it appears to imply that a country naturally "crowded" with or "bursting at the seams" with people, is no shame at all, but a great help to the greater good of the populous many, as I often proclaim. Sure, it might be nice if more land or resources were available, but what of the dignity and sacredness of each and every human life? A baby growing in the womb, or crops growing in the field, are going to find themselves getting "crowded" as they get bigger. But that's what's to be expected. But this world is not our final home. The Bible is very clear on that. Just like any good gardener at some point, may transplant young seedling plants, into a place with more room for bigger plants, why wouldn't God, at his appropriate time, do the same with us? Even sci-fi stories imagine humans at some point, finding ways to spread to colonize more worlds, so just because "eventually," this planet may be shown to become inadequate for the needs of humanity, doesn't at all mean we can't all enjoy breeding now.

Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
18. ### XeliosWe're setting you adrift idiotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,447
Oh but it does work out the same, because in the real world the island is our planet, and the population is 6.3 billion rather than 500.

19. ### SciencelovahRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,349
I haven't seen anyone reply to my post #51 yet. I found so far in this thread
that the discussion expands from the assumption that by reducing the earth
mass, the earth can go farther from the sun, and therefore cooler. Then
to reduce this mass, the discussion expands to how to send material/people
to other planet, etc..

If the assumption is true, then how to explain the arrangement of the solar
system (image in post #51)? The earth is already 378 times lighter
than the Jupiter, yet it is located closer to the sun than the Jupiter. And
what about the Mercury planet? Why it doesn't pulled farther from the sun
than the earth ? :shrug:

p.s:

mercury mass = 3.3022×$10^{23}$ kg

earth mass = 5.9736×$10^{24}$ kg

jupiter mass = 1.8986×$10^{27}$ kg

Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
20. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,880
I think we are much better off by sprinkling some iron ore on the ocean thereby stimulating growth of phytoplankton and acceleration the co2 recapture process.

21. ### draqonBannedBanned

Messages:
35,006
yeah but by doing so the phytoplankton will stimulate growth of species that eat it...they will grow out of proportions...and some way down the ecosystem line the whole process will collapse.

22. ### XeliosWe're setting you adrift idiotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,447
Guess any way you look at it we're screwed. Time to sit back, light a :m: and enjoy the sunset

23. ### capelliRegistered Member

Messages:
46
Pronatalist. Yeah, sure having big families at this moment in time isn't causing mass deaths due to overpopulation in places such as the US right now, but can you not see that eventually if people keep having many children then there will some point in the future become a time when there just isn't enough space left for any more. For example say, overpopulation has reached the point where there is one person per square feet of land on the earth(not that resources would ever be available to fuel this situation).

Maybe you propose building more and more multi-storied living space to accommodate all of these people, providing more space, but then people breed more and more until there are so many people in the world that every cubic space on the planet is taken by its human occupants. Now of course there is no chance this would happen but it sounds as though you expect things to never get to this point. So at some point there must come a point where people begin to die of thirst and starvation? I mean if there is barely enough room for people to move, they can't possible grow their own food, neither is eating meat possible as there is no longer enough room for any other living creature. (Never mind the fact that there won't be enough oxygen, amongst many many other disastrous problems). So of course we have many many deaths(which would definitely happen long before this), people would die because there would be too many people. Is this right? Life being brought into the world just to die because there is not enough space. Do you still believe that in this super-populated earth(which is the only possible outcome of your beliefs) that people should have their big families? Knowing they will die of starvation regardless? But everyone should have the right to have those big families, right? What would your solution be at this point?

There is also a highly likely outcome that mass population will lead to war over land and resources, which again would lead to mass death.

Do you have any solution other than population control that prevents over population? No matter what you propose, if people keep having big families then eventually land and resources will run out.

By the way, there are already a lack of resources for the whole population in many countries around the world already. Sure, there are many factors relating to this but your argument that resources won't be a problem is already being disproved all of time. In many parts of Africa there are huge numbers of needless deaths due to there being very little birth control in use. Children are born with HIV, and then have no clean water to drink and very little food. Can you really justify this?

Please don't talk around the key issues here, and try not to rely on biblical quotes either, they have little meaning to me and provide no logical basis or reasoning to this debate.