REORBITING VENUS
Alexander Abian
The altering of the orbit of Venus, putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit
is and must - from this point on - be the main, the leading and principal
subject and the focal point of Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space
Science, Space Technology and Space Engineering. For brevity I will call
this subject:
subject: REORBITING VENUS
and I most sincerely renew my request for:
(1) suggesting methods of accomplishing the reorbiting of Venus
(2) comparing various suggestions expressed by the specialists
(3) discussing various approaches and proposing imaginative, yet
practical ways of reorbiting Venus
(4) stating theoretical questions in connection with the reorbiting
Venus
etc., etc., etc.
Please do not be intimidated by the Cosmic scale and by the Celestial
order of magnitude of the task of reorbiting of Venus. Let it not
frightened you that you are taking the task of Creating of another
Earth-planet. Let the question of reshuffling the Solar System does
not stir an apocalyptic feeling of awe in you. We will reshuffle the
Solar System, we will recreate the the creation in a much more rational,
and healthier way, liberating ourselves from the perennial colossal
natural disasters and ecological catastrophes and epidemics of diseases.
I cannot accept that we will not be able to impose our will on the
Cosmos and remain forever speechless slaves accepting the conditions
imposed on us without questions asked and without defiance shown.
It is time to challenge the entire setup of Celestial organization, even
challenge the Laws of Nature ! Who said that the Laws of Nature must
remain the same forever ? Why should the gravity remain for ever !! The
TIME will dissipate that too ! And here we are sitting and believing
in the permanence of the Laws of Nature ! What Laws of Nature ?!!
Besides the statement "there is no permanent Law of Nature" there is
no permanent Law of Nature !.
Give me suggestions how to reorbit Venus. Do not throw a wet towel on
the subject by saying that it is impossible ! it is outrageous, it is
not within our capability. Do not say that there is no need to create a
new planet Earth, since the possibility of the existence of an Earth type
planet somewhere in some galaxy is almost a certainty. I know all about
the probabilities and possibilities. However, the possibility of that right
at this moment there is a person (other than me) called Alexander Abian on
a planet in any galaxy typing just this exact text on a computer is not an
almost certainty !
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Mark Slater
>Okay, as a thought experiment then...
>
>Would the 'Space 1999' approach work if you timed it correctly? If you
>let off a large enough explosion on the equator at the right time, could
>you kick Venus out of orbit, then use a similar method to kick it into a
>new orbit? I appreciate that the force required would be rather large,
>but I don't have the time to do the maths. Any takers?
>
>Nik Whitehead
It's the only way I can see with present technology and to produce the
force necessary you would need to use nuclear warheads. Not being a
mathematican, I not sure what size an explosion you would need, but its
bound to produce a hell of alot of radiation, thereby possible negating
the whole reasin for moving the planet in the first place!
Nik Whitehead
Thomas Clarke
>
> The altering of the orbit of Venus, putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit
> is and must - from this point on - be the main, the leading and principal
> subject and the focal point of Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space
> Science, Space Technology and Space Engineering. For brevity I will call
> this subject:
I would make use of the chaotic properties of the solar system.
More specifically, the sensitivity to initial conditions of planetary
orbits.
I would raise the orbit of Venus by exchange of angular momentum
with Mars. This would be accomplished by controlling a stream
of objects to ping-pong back and forth between Mars and Venus.
With careful control and selection of orbits the amount of
course correction needed would be minimal, within conceivable
nuclear rocket technology.
My first thought was to use Pluto, which is apparently in a chaotic
orbit. Perturb it enough to glance off Neptune into the inner solar
system where it could interact with Venus and Mars. However,
I don't think Pluto would survive the close encounter - within Roche
distance - needed. It would disentegrate if it didn't evaporate
first.
It would be more practical to perturb some rocky asteroids (immune to
tidal disruption) out of the asteroid belt and down to exchange
momentum. If asteroids equivalent to a sphere of rock 400 km in
diamter could be marshalled, the mass involved in transfering momentum
would be say 10E-4 of the planetary masses involved. Since the
cycle time between Venus and Mars would of the order of a year.
It would take order 10E4 years to move Mars in and Venus out.
(give or take an order of magnitude either way).
Perhaps if some of the smallers Jovian or Saturnian satellites
were enlisted, the time could be reduced.
Another possibility would be to go out to the Oort cometary
cloud and start a bombardment of comets in to bounce off
Venus and Mars. Actually, this might allow raising Venus
and lowering Mars independent of each other.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
3280 Progress Drive, Orlando, FL 32826-0544
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, cla...@acme.ist.ucf.edu
&tSftDotIotE
> Would the 'Space 1999' approach work if you timed it correctly? If you
> let off a large enough explosion on the equator at the right time, could
> you kick Venus out of orbit, then use a similar method to kick it into a
> new orbit? I appreciate that the force required would be rather large,
> but I don't have the time to do the maths. Any takers?
I presume that such a blast necessary to knock it into a new orbit would
render the planet quite damaged and likely radioactive if nuclear devices
were used.
Why _are_ you taking Abian seriously?
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!apple!uuwest!max m...@west.darkside.com __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W / \
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. All things that are, are lights. -)(- \__/
Richard Stueven
smaller, shouldn't be so tough; so here's the plan.
Mount a big jet engine on the Moon, and put it on a gimbal so you can
steer it. Then fly the Moon over to a parking orbit around Venus.
From that point, it should be simple to build a big crane on the Moon
and use it simply to lift Venus out of its current orbit into the orbit
of your choosing. To appease the environmentalists, be sure to fly the
Moon back to its original orbit when you're done.
have fun
gak
---
Richard Stueven g...@wrs.com attmail!gakhaus!gak 209/15/19&20
More and more holiday makers, especially youngsters, are
treating our beach like an ordinary beach and simply refusing
to get undressed. - Gerard Paillou, mayor of Cap d'Agde, France
Michael Moroney
>nwhi...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Nik Whitehead) writes:
>> Would the 'Space 1999' approach work if you timed it correctly? If you
>> let off a large enough explosion on the equator at the right time, could
>> you kick Venus out of orbit, then use a similar method to kick it into a
>> new orbit? I appreciate that the force required would be rather large,
>> but I don't have the time to do the maths. Any takers?
>I presume that such a blast necessary to knock it into a new orbit would
>render the planet quite damaged and likely radioactive if nuclear devices
>were used.
>Why _are_ you taking Abian seriously?
Besides, moving Venus to an Earthlike orbit would do very little to make
it livable, about as productive as trying to make an oven livable by
turning down the thermostat from 500 degrees to 475.
-Mike
thomas.t.wetmore..iv
Venus with a tether; wind up on the planet of choice (probably Mars).
Bonus: two more planets in comfortable orbits. Advantage: simple
rubber band and paper clip technology.
I did not clear the release of this idea through AT&T. Please don't tell.
Tom Wetmore, thomas....@att.com
Chris Marriott
You think this can be done with present technology???
Do a simple calculation. Work out the kinetic energy of Venus as it orbits
the Sun (ie 1/2*m*v^2). Work out how many atomic bombs you'd need to
detonate to change this by 1%. Still think it's feasible?
Chris
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott, Warrington, UK | Author of "SkyMap" shareware |
| Internet: ch...@chrism.demon.co.uk | astronomy program for Windows. |
| CompuServe: 100113,1140 | Mail me for details! |
| Windows, C/C++ consultancy undertaken, anywhere in the world. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Abian
NASA's goal and the chief priority must be to Reorbit Venus by the year
2004. Reorbiting Venus and putting it into an Earth-like orbit and thus
creating a Born Again Earth is the inevitable event that human genius will
achieve in its insatiable and inexorable quest for power over the entire
Cosmos and for the imposition of its own will on the entire Celestial
organization.
Yes, the imposition of will is the very process of life.
Do not discourage , do not put down, do not dismiss and do not throw cold
water upon the intrepid, undaunted brilliant minds who do have the bold and
fearless imagination and vision of suggesting and proposing the creation of
a New Born Earth. Do not say "it is not feasible !".
I appeal to Physicists, to Astronomers, to Astrophysicists, to Space
Scientists and Engineers, especially to those with bold revolutionary,
and courageous minds, not to succumb to the repressing , discouraging,
daunting and dispiriting counter arguments to the proposal of reorbiting of
Venus.
And, I do ask you for your suggestions and guidance.
There was hardly any valiant act any innovative brilliant, ingenious idea
which was not met with dismissal, ridicule , depreciation and disapproval
(please, O, please do not repeat again and again the argument that lots of
revolutionary ideas which were dismissed turned out to be morbidly invalid !
I know that. But, I still say that any revolutionary profoundly brilliant
ideas and proposals, without exception were dismissed and ridiculed for
quite a long time) The Xerox machine which changed our lives dramatically,
its inventor for five years was dismissed as a crank - got bankrupt several
times and had to beg people to pay attention and listen to him !
I noticed that several people argued that the conditions on Venus are
hellish ! 900 F-degrees, thick ponderous atmosphere of sulfuric acid and
carbon dioxide, etc, etc, - a real inferno. Yes, correct ! But do not
forget that our own planet Earth has also had hellish, infernal past !!
At the big Bang everything was hellishly hellish !! Reorbiting Venus,
putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit will get rid of that hellishness
very quickly !! (Don't ask me what are my data ! If there are data
to the contrary, please let me know).
NASA must have a well defined goal. I am sure that the entire world
population will be supportive of the goal to reorbit Venus by the year
2004 !! It will be the act of unprecedented reaffirmation of human
intelligence and genius to achieve the duplication of the miracle of all
miracles, i.e., the creation of a new born planet Earth.
Yes, I know all about the probabilities and possibilities.
I know that a computer will be able to type on its own the entire work
of Shakespeare (together with lots of gibberish) After all, the computer
can type all possible sequences of letters occurring in all works of
Shakespeare. But to pick up the one that will satisfy our intellectual
aspirations, interest and demands,... for that, most probably the computers
have to be made of flesh and of brain circulated by blood !!!
I doubt whether the Cosmos has a duplicate of our Planet Earth. Blood does
not circulate through the interstellar dust!
NASA must totally concentrate on Reorbiting of Venus. Its present
activities are unfocused, they do not stir the aspirations and imagination
of masses !! The present activities of NASA are pale and pallid . What is
the value or the significance of deep probings of the Universe !! Very little !
There will be found nothing new - everything is made of the same stuff
same earth to earth and same ashes to ashes. I am proposing the creation of
a second planet Earth. I am suggesting to create a second planet which will
sustain the lives of homosapiens - the greatest achievement and the mother
miracle of the entire Universe !
NASA's exclusive goal, ambition and aim must be the reorbiting Venus by
the year 2004. Otherwise NASA will lose its viability. That wee should not
permit ! never ! never !
Karl Hahn
>
>
>
> NASA's goal and the chief priority must be to Reorbit Venus by the year
> 2004.
A quick calculation reveals that the energy necessary to reorbit Venus
is 8.3e32 joules, or the entire output of the sun for a period of
about 25 days. Conservation of energy is something that I believe in
and may also be plausible to Professor Abian. Hence, any solution
must detail where such a huge amount of energy would come from.
To capture that much energy from the sun would require some mechanism
that would intercept a significant fraction of the 4pi square radians
that it radiates in -- in the manner of a Dyson sphere. Such a
structure would necessarily dwarf the size of the earth. I don't see
how anything like that could be ready by the year 2004. Hence we
must look elsewhere for the energy.
Another possibility is finding a collection of objects in higher
orbit than Venus (asteriods for example) and redirecting their orbits
to make successive close encounters with Venus. Let's say that we
find an unlimited quantity of objects that are all about 1% the mass
of Venus. We will ignore the problem of finding the energy to
redirect them for now. By elementary physics, we have that in the
best encounter, each small object can impart only 2% of its energy to
Venus. This means you'd have to find approximately 5000 small
objects -- or at least prepare to cause on the order of 5000
encounters. Of course it takes several years for each one to travel
from its original orbit to Venus's orbit. There is the further
complication that the inner solar system would become cluttered with
eccentrically orbiting objects. And getting back to the problem of
finding energy with which to redirect them in the first place, it
turns out that that total energy for objects in asteroidlike orbits,
though perhaps less than the number cited above, is still in the same
ball park.
Of course you could use objects in the outer reaches of the solar system.
They require significantly less energy to redirect toward Venus. They
do, however, require decades of flight to reach their target, and before
that could happen, we would need decades of flight to get to them in
the first place.
I don't know, Professor Abian. I think your schedule is over-ambitious.
[stuff deleted]
> I noticed that several people argued that the conditions on Venus are
> hellish ! 900 F-degrees, thick ponderous atmosphere of sulfuric acid and
> carbon dioxide, etc, etc, - a real inferno. Yes, correct ! But do not
> forget that our own planet Earth has also had hellish, infernal past !!
> At the big Bang everything was hellishly hellish !! Reorbiting Venus,
> putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit will get rid of that hellishness
> very quickly !! (Don't ask me what is my data ! If there is a data
> to the contrary, please let me know).
First of all, there is hardly enough water on Venus to flush a decent
urinal. It all boiled away into space eons ago due to the high
temperatures. This has been confirmed by spectral studies of its
atmosphere, together with the results of the Soviet Venera missions.
For a planet to be Earthlike, I would think it would have to have
oceans.
In addition, Venus's atmosphere contains 90 time the mass of Earth's,
and is predominantly CO2 (which, because it is heavier than water,
does not boil away at Venusian temperatures). For reasons unknown,
Venus spewed out far more gas in its early years than did Earth.
This is why Earth cooled and Venus didn't.
Knowing the absorbtion spectrum of CO2, it is possible to predict
that Venus would never reach Earthlike temperatures even if placed in
Earthlike orbit. It would be somewhat cooler, but still hellish. Of
course any technology that could move Venus from one orbit to another
could find a way of discarding 89/90 of the gas held over its
surface.
[stuff deleted]
>
> NASA must totally concentrate on Reorbiting of Venus. Its present
> activities are unfocused, they do not stir the aspirations and imagination
> of masses !!
If you had a student who couldn't remain focused on elementary
algebra, would trying to teach him differential geometry help? When
JFK proposed the goal of going to the moon, the game plan for doing
so was already known. In his famous speech, JFK even repeated data
for how big the launch vehicle would have to be. It was less than an
order of magnitude bigger than launch vehicles existing at the time.
The mission was clearly doable with existing and forseeable
technology. What would have happened if JFK had instead proposed
going to the spiral of Andromeda? Do you seriously think anybody
would have become more focused?
[remainder deleted]
--
| (V) | "Tiger gotta hunt. Bird gotta fly.
| (^ (`> | Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
| ((\\__/ ) | Tiger gotta sleep. Bird gotta land.
| (\\< ) der Nethahn | Man gotta tell himself he understand."
| \< ) |
| ( / | Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
| | |
| ^ |
Kevin Marvel
Lets just assume a circular orbit since Venus' eccenctricity
is only .0068, meaning only off by .6% SO:
L (ang mom) = M (mass) * V (tangential Velocity) * R (Radius)
Venus' radius from sun = 108.2 * 10^6 km
Venus' velocity = 35.03 km/s
Venus' mass = 4.86 * 10^24 kg
Thus Venus' angular momentum is: 1.8 * 10^34 kg km^2 /s
For Mars we have:
R = 227.9 * 10^6 km
V = 24.13 km/s
M = 6.4 * 10^23 kg
Thus Mars' angular momentum is: 3.5 * 10 ^ 33 kg km^2 /s
For Earth we have:
R = 149.6 * 10^6 km
V = 29.79 km/s
M = 5.97 * 10^27 kg
Thus Earth's angular momentum is: 2.66 * 10^37 kg km^2 /s
Now, to have Venus at the same orbit as Earth, It needs the same
velocity. So, Venus in the Earth's orbit would have an angular
momentum of: 2.2 * 10^34 kg km^2 /s an increase of 22%.
Taking mass from Mars and putting it on Venus or exchanging mass
pods or whatever is just crazy. What you should do is just speed
Venus up slowly and in such a way that it can move to Earth's orbital
speed and radius. This would require a 22% change in the angular
momentum.
Even if you took all of Mars' angular momentum and suddenly gave
it to Venus, you would not be able to make Venus have the
angular momentum needed to put in an orbit similar to the Earth.
Kevin Marvel <kma...@nmsu.edu> | "...and all the Science I don't
Department of Astronomy | Understand, it's just my Job
New Mexico State University | 5 days a week..."--Elton John
Alexander Abian
To search in all the museums of the world for a second authentic painting
(nevermind a duplicate) which closely resembles Picasso's painting
"Les Demoiselles d"Avignon" is considerably less futile than to search in all
the Solar Systems of the Universe for a second planet which closely resembles
our planet Earth with its Celestial parameters w,.r.t its Sun !
And you know how utterly futile is the abovementioned search for "Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon"!
I am almost firmly convinced that our Planet Earth and especially the Life
on our planet Earth is absolutely UNIQUE and we are a unique product of
the unique Celestial parameters of our Planet Earth.
Moreover, we have the rarest opportunity to create an almost duplicate of
our planet Earth and this via Reorbiting Venus (the twin of our planet
Earth) by putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit.
First of all let me thank all those who responded positively to
my suggestion at least in the sense of not deprecating and not flaming me.
I do not flame or deprecate anyone ! In fact, I welcome any constructive
comments and I thank again those who give a serious consideration especially
as far as technical aspects of Reorbiting of Venus is concerned.
My only comment is that there is a very quick tendency and perhaps not a
thoughtful reaction to dismiss the Reorbiting Venus! Why such an apprehension !
There is an unfathomable amount of Energy at our disposal. The amount of
Energy must not deter people from working toward the goal of creating a second
planet for our occupancy !
I repeat again, and I wish NASA focuses all its technical know how, all
its outstanding technical personnel toward the goal of reorbiting Venus by
the year 2004. This is possible ! It should be done ! The deep Cosmic
probes or landing on planets which cannot sustain our lives are just a
terrible, dreadful wast of everything ! I am almost sure that our planet is
the unique planet in the Universe where our scientific, and technological
miraculous culture could develop. Let us not lose the extremely, extremely
rare opportunity to duplicating them by Reorbiting Venus.
I hope NASA will become a vital and moving force in Reorbiting Venus and
once again will become the technological beacon for the entire world.
Please post proposals and guidance in a sincere and cooperating spirit.
Thank you.
Joe Dellinger
|> Even if you took all of Mars' angular momentum and suddenly gave
|> it to Venus, you would not be able to make Venus have the
|> angular momentum needed to put in an orbit similar to the Earth.
We'd clearly have to take the angular momentum from Jupiter.
However, there is one other "small" problem nobody seems to be
considering: where is EARTH when all this is going on? And if Venus is
in Earth's orbit, what orbit will Earth be in? Are Venus and Earth supposed
to be sharing the same orbit? How could we keep them stable in the same orbit?
And DON'T say that Venus will be at one of the Earth-Sun Lagrange points!
Venus is way too big for that! Small objects would be stable there, but nothing
much larger than about twice the mass of the moon.
OK, so we just bring JUPITER in to Earth's orbit and have Venus and
Earth and Mars all orbiting it. How about that? Of course, we'd have comets
smashing into us a lot more often...
But, how are we going to get rid of Jupiter's angular momentum to
drop it into the inner solar system? Well... we go out to a globular cluster
and move around some planets using asteroids, until we manage to perturb a
star close to another star so it gets ejected from the center of the cluster
in JUST the right way to pass the Sun and move Jupiter in...
This is going to take a while!
/\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
/ \ / \ /Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, Honolulu\/\/\.-.-....__
___/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger, Internet: j...@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu\/\.-.__
hath...@stsci.edu
>
>
>
> Reorbiting Venus and putting it into an Earth-like orbit
>
>
So exactly what is the probablity that Venus moved to such an orbit
will collide with Earth and destroy both planets along with all life?
There just ain't room for two planets in the same place, fella.
WHH
Daniel Rubin
>So exactly what is the probablity that Venus moved to such an orbit
>will collide with Earth and destroy both planets along with all life?
>There just ain't room for two planets in the same place, fella.
Not really, if both planets have the same exact velocity and they were
placed in orbit on opposite sides of the sun from each other in a two
dimensional plane they would never collide right? If we did have the
ability to do this we should also have the ability to adjust the orbit
of venus slightly to compensate and keep her far from earth. Of course
such a situation would make for a long trip from earth to venus.
- Dan
PS. Even though Abian may be off his rocker this discussion is interesting
and I don't appreciate the netnews "reply police" sending me instructions
on how and what to post.
--
Daniel Rubin ru...@cbzoo.att.com _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Go Bucks
Systems Administrator _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/
AT&T Bell Labs Columbus, Ohio _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/
(614) 860-6487 Go Bucks _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/
Galcik
> To search in all the museums of the world for a second authentic painting
>(nevermind a duplicate) which closely resembles Picasso's painting
>"Les Demoiselles d"Avignon" is considerably less futile than to search in all
>the Solar Systems of the Universe for a second planet which closely resembles
>our planet Earth with its Celestial parameters w,.r.t its Sun !
>
> And you know how utterly futile is the abovementioned search for "Les
>Demoiselles d'Avignon"!
I'll keep my reply here brief, since you're obviously not taking time to read
other people's objections either:
You are astoundingly clueless.
People around the world will NOT rally around the idea; imagine getting people
around the world to rally around anything the US has to say.
Your quote up the top of my post was picked entirely out of your head. You have
no idea what the odds are of finding the aforementioned painting; you
consequently have no idea what the odds are of finding another Earth-like
planet. It's all fabrication. No one knows.
I'll say nothing about the scentific aspects of the whole concept. I don't know
enough about it. But I've got a logical mind, and I can tell you that many of
your arguments you use to "prove" your theory are just plain stupid. (Although
"senseless" might be a better descriptor.)
Unless you're talking to some form of alien who knows more than we do, or
unless you've got magical powers that allows you to take stock of each
planet-sized mass in the Milky Way, there's no way you could be (logically)
convinced of this. I'm not discounting the possibility of your having
supernatural powers, but I want to see proof first.
------------------------------ --- ------------------------------------
Greg Galcik | gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
An Equal Opportunity Annoyer. | tmbg - mst3k - zweblo (with umlaut)
-----------My Extremely Tiny FTP Server: spider.navsses.navy.mil-----------
P.S.: Damn, and I was going to keep this brief. Ah well. You know, I came all
the way from alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine to find this loon.
P.P.S.: Or is it "roger"? I keep forgetting.
Galcik
this, but I find I can't help myself. Really. My fingers are typing of their
own accord. At the moment I'm screaming "HELP ME! HELP ME!" at the top of my
lungs, but everybody else has gone home for the day, so:
In sci.astro, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> I noticed that several people argued that the conditions on Venus are
>hellish ! 900 F-degrees, thick ponderous atmosphere of sulfuric acid and
>carbon dioxide, etc, etc, - a real inferno. Yes, correct ! But do not
>forget that our own planet Earth has also had hellish, infernal past !!
>At the big Bang everything was hellishly hellish !! Reorbiting Venus,
>putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit will get rid of that hellishness
>very quickly !! (Don't ask me what are my data ! If there are data
>to the contrary, please let me know).
Huh? Oh, okay, so we'll get Venus to Earth's orbit by 2004. When will Venus
suddenly pop into an Earth-like planet, 2012?
And for that matter, what do you mean, "if there are data to the contrary,
please let me know"? Is that how you came to your conclusions? Because you just
"didn't know" any data to the contrary?
Tell you what, I'll ask you anyway. WHAT ARE YOUR DATA? I really gotta know
this. Here's my datum: It took the Earth several million years to cool down.
Does that mean we'll have a new, inhabitable planet by 7,002,004?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
I'd like to know how you equate "change the tilt of Earth" to "disease will go
away", too.
Troy Parker
>In article 98...@dct.ac.uk, nwhi...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Nik Whitehead) writes:
>>
which required the least energy? In that case, we
would need to use a Hohmann minimum-energy transit,
which requires a near-instantaneous delta-V (in other
words, the Space 1999 approach mentioned earlier).
If we use less explosive measures, we'll need more
energy.
Maybe we could use mirrors, etc. to increase the light
striking Venus's side that's trailing in its orbit
(sorry, don't know technical term), and cause the
planet to change orbit due to light pressure.
Problems: It'd take millenia, and it'd heat up
an already hot place.
Any other ideas?
-Troy Parker
Mechanical Engineering student
Technical University of Nova Scotia, Canada
jba...@desire.wright.edu
>
> Would the best way to reorbit Venus be that method
> which required the least energy? In that case, we
> would need to use a Hohmann minimum-energy transit,
> which requires a near-instantaneous delta-V (in other
> words, the Space 1999 approach mentioned earlier).
> If we use less explosive measures, we'll need more
> energy.
>
> Maybe we could use mirrors, etc. to increase the light
> striking Venus's side that's trailing in its orbit
> (sorry, don't know technical term), and cause the
> planet to change orbit due to light pressure.
> Problems: It'd take millenia, and it'd heat up
> an already hot place.
>
I think this topic needs to be added to the FAQ. This topic comes up
about once every 6 months (seemingly right after an Abian post, imagine
that). And although I find the conceptual challange interesting, I
think most readers can understand why some of the net veterans are
becomming fed up with the whole thing.
From the last series of discussions (or the series before that), one
interested and educated netter proposed using one of the mid-sized
main belt asteroids. By using the Space 1999 approach, detonating
nuclear devices at controlled times a places, it would be possible to
"steer" it. Now you need to control it's trajectory so that it makes
NUMEROUS transits between Jupiter and Venus. Under these conditions
the transfer of momentum is nearly identical to inelastic bounce
between spheres of different masses.
I'm using the delta V requirements for a Hohman transfer from Venus's
orbit to Earth's even though the actual delta V will be higher. I'm
using Vesta as my delta V transfer mechanism and assuming a mass of
1e20 Kg. I'm guessing that we are on average going to get a Vesta
delta V at each encounter of 1 Km/sec (it's 1/10th of what's required
to transfer from Venus to Jupiter, so you'll need several passes to
get it back to Jupiter). It takes 139,350 interactions to raise the
aphelion and 129,150 interactions to raise the perihelion. Each
'interaction, will take more than one year, so plan on taking at least
300,000 years to do this project *after* you have started the movement
of Vesta out of the belt (you could probably use interactions with
other asteroids to speed this up).
However, even after the problem of moving the planet is solved several
other problems remain.
1) Putting Venus into the Earth's orbit will make BOTH orbits unstable
2) The Earth's orbit will become unstable LONG before Venus makes it into
orbit. This is due to the fact that we will be gradually raising Venus'
aphelion until it is at Earth's orbit radius and then raising its
perhelion. Since an elliptical orbit with aphelion @ 93e6 mi and
perhelion @ 67e6 mi has a different period than a circular one @
93e6, they will interfer with each other.
3) Venus will still be way too hot, have too much atmosphere, and too
little water after acheiving Earth orbit.
My suggestion is that you keep raising Venus's orbit into mars's orbit,
try a close encounter with mars to lower it into Venus's orbit. Now
you need to strip off some of Venus's atmosphere. Then you need to go
out to the Oort cloud and start a rain of comets onto both planets or
possible you could nab Callisto and Ganymede one for each. However,
you should plan on taking at least 500,000 years to move each of these
objects. But in the end you have 2 more habital planets.
***** KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME *****
***** Abian don't try this in the only known inhabited Solar System *****
Have fun,
--
Jim Batka | Work Email: BAT...@DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
| Home Email: JBA...@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU | DEAD!
64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
and a minute is a LONG time! - Beatles: _ Yellow Submarine_
Alexander Abian
>Why not just terraform it where it is?
>
> Chris
Abian answers:
There is no other planet in the entire Cosmos which has the physical
characteristics (mass, volume, etc) of our planet Earth and which also has the
Celestial parameters in a Solar System similar to the Celestial parameters
of our Planet Earth in its Solar System.
The emergence, existence and continued existence of Homosapiens are the re-
sults and consequences of the Celestial parameters of the planet Earth.
I strongly doubt that by Terrafoming the Moon you could maintain the
existence of Homosapiens and maintain their intellectual state and enhance its
growth.
Contrary to all the science fictions I do not believe that there are
creatures which are more intelligent than us - human beings (i.e. homo-
sapiens).
I do not believe that there are creatures other than human beings who have
created or who could create such a miracle as the decimal representation
of real numbers - a representation which encodes the entire subtleties of
the Mathematical Analysis.
I do not believe that there are creatures other than us who could produce
marvels such as Bach's partitas, Beethoven's quartets, Chopin's Scherzos
and Schubert's sonatas.
I do not believe that there are creatures other than us who could create
little cassettes which can store all the 9 symphonies of Beethoven and which
can reproduce the combined efforts of 100 or so musicians on a little
tape recorder played in the most personal and individual locals.
No, there are no creatures more intelligent than us, nowhere nowhere in the
entire Cosmos other than on our planet Earth !!
Why ? Because there is no other Solar System like our Solar system
which also has a planet like our planet Earth whose orbit is like the
orbit of our planet Earth.
I know the arguments of probabilities for the existence of a planet
where homosapiens like us exist, etc., etc. That prbability is so
small, so infinitesimally small that for the spontaneous duplication of our
planet Earth it would require (10000...00000) ^(10000 ... 00000) light
centuries and even then there is no guarantee !
However, we can create e a clone of our planet Earth and perhaps even
within 10 years. Planet Venus, except for its orbit around the sun is an
identical twin of our planet Earth. Instead of piling up nuclear fusion
energy for the annihilation of our own species for the quest of political
power - that energy can be used to REORBIT VENUS and putting it in an orbit
similar to the orbit of the planet Earth (and not necessarily on the same
orbital plane).
We have intelligence and we do not have to wait the abovementioned light
years for possible or probable duplication of our planet Earth. Indeed,
we can CLONE !!! We can and should CLONE a duplicate of our planet Earth!
NASA's chief priority should be to Reorbit Venus by the year 2004.
I am sure that the imaginative intellectually and technologically creative
Astronomers, Astrophysicists and Physicist, especially the young daring
souls will Reorbit Venus.
I believe and trust that the young scientists will not dismiss Reorbiting
Venus for any reason whatsoever, and on the contrary will thrive toward
that goal, suggest, propose methods and procedures.
There is nothing more sad than the reaction and answer to an intrepid idea
which are reactions of mockery, of depreciation , of personal insults; and
answers such as : it is crazy, it is stupid, it can't be done, it is insane
it is impossible, it is ridiculous.! This kind of reaction is indeed sad,
morbidly sad ! It kills the mind, it kills the soul it kills the spirit and
has no creative life in it !
A daring, brilliant, undaunted, unchained mind will say : it is possible,
solutions must be found, there is a solution, wee will find it !! We will
overcome the obstacles, we will do it !!
Such a daring, NASA had shown in the past and I am sure that NASA will be
able to reorbit Venus by the year 2004. As I said before, deep probings
of the Cosmos will reveal nothing new - same earth, same sand and same ashes.
The aim and the goal of NASA must be to reorbit Venus by the year 2004 !
--
Prince Hal
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: REORBITING VENUS
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1993Dec09.09...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com> <CHwM8...@news.iastate.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <CHwM8...@news.iastate.edu>,
Alexander Abian <ab...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Dec09.09...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com> Christoph...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com writes:
>>Why not just terraform it where it is?
>>
>> Chris
>
>Abian answers:
> There is no other planet in the entire Cosmos which has the physical
>characteristics (mass, volume, etc) of our planet Earth and which also has the
>Celestial parameters in a Solar System similar to the Celestial parameters
>of our Planet Earth in its Solar System.
>
> The emergence, existence and continued existence of Homosapiens are the re-
>sults and consequences of the Celestial parameters of the planet Earth.
>
> I strongly doubt that by Terrafoming the Moon you could maintain the
>existence of Homosapiens and maintain their intellectual state and enhance its
>growth.
>
> Contrary to all the science fictions I do not believe that there are
>creatures which are more intelligent than us - human beings (i.e. homo-
>sapiens).
thank you for the clarification there.....I could have sworn you you
meant something else by human beings for a second there.
>
>
> I do not believe that there are creatures other than human beings who have
>created or who could create such a miracle as the decimal representation
>of real numbers - a representation which encodes the entire subtleties of
>the Mathematical Analysis.
>
> I do not believe that there are creatures other than us who could produce
>marvels such as Bach's partitas, Beethoven's quartets, Chopin's Scherzos
>and Schubert's sonatas.
> I do not believe that there are creatures other than us who could create
>little cassettes which can store all the 9 symphonies of Beethoven and which
>can reproduce the combined efforts of 100 or so musicians on a little
>tape recorder played in the most personal and individual locals.
>
> No, there are no creatures more intelligent than us, nowhere nowhere in the
>entire Cosmos other than on our planet Earth !!
>
> Why ? Because there is no other Solar System like our Solar system
>which also has a planet like our planet Earth whose orbit is like the
>orbit of our planet Earth.
>
> I know the arguments of probabilities for the existence of a planet
>where homosapiens like us exist, etc., etc. That prbability is so
>small, so infinitesimally small that for the spontaneous duplication of our
>planet Earth it would require (10000...00000) ^(10000 ... 00000) light
>centuries and even then there is no guarantee !
actually I think a spontaneous duplication of any planet would be
impossible. As far as scientists have been able to figure....planets
usually take quite a while to evolve. assuming you meant a planet
evolving such as our pretty earth did....I'm wondering where you
got these figures. Of course, far be it for me to doubt such
an exact estimation (10000...00000? what kind of number is that?)
> However, we can create e a clone of our planet Earth and perhaps even
>within 10 years. Planet Venus, except for its orbit around the sun is an
>identical twin of our planet Earth. Instead of piling up nuclear fusion
>energy for the annihilation of our own species for the quest of political
>power - that energy can be used to REORBIT VENUS and putting it in an orbit
>similar to the orbit of the planet Earth (and not necessarily on the same
>orbital plane).
>
> We have intelligence and we do not have to wait the abovementioned light
>years for possible or probable duplication of our planet Earth. Indeed,
>we can CLONE !!! We can and should CLONE a duplicate of our planet Earth!
>
> NASA's chief priority should be to Reorbit Venus by the year 2004.
>
> I am sure that the imaginative intellectually and technologically creative
>Astronomers, Astrophysicists and Physicist, especially the young daring
>souls will Reorbit Venus.
>
> I believe and trust that the young scientists will not dismiss Reorbiting
>Venus for any reason whatsoever, and on the contrary will thrive toward
>that goal, suggest, propose methods and procedures.
>
>There is nothing more sad than the reaction and answer to an intrepid idea
>which are reactions of mockery, of depreciation , of personal insults; and
>answers such as : it is crazy, it is stupid, it can't be done, it is insane
>it is impossible, it is ridiculous.! This kind of reaction is indeed sad,
>morbidly sad ! It kills the mind, it kills the soul it kills the spirit and
>has no creative life in it !
I would think that by now you would be used to this sort of response.
> A daring, brilliant, undaunted, unchained mind will say : it is possible,
>solutions must be found, there is a solution, wee will find it !! We will
>overcome the obstacles, we will do it !!
>
> Such a daring, NASA had shown in the past and I am sure that NASA will be
>able to reorbit Venus by the year 2004. As I said before, deep probings
>of the Cosmos will reveal nothing new - same earth, same sand and same ashes.
>The aim and the goal of NASA must be to reorbit Venus by the year 2004 !
>
Does anyone else think this guy is a complete dufus.
Abian....I think you should take a few Astronomy and Physics
courses and report back to us when you are done.
It was, however, a wonderful essay, considering it was written by
someone who thinks the cassette is the technological wonder of
our time. I'm afraid that if he bought a CD he would drop dead in
shock.
this flame brought to you by the letters : d, o, r, and k
and all of the numbers in our amazing little base ten number
sysem.
*smile*
dave
Alexander Abian
In <1993Dec12....@Princeton.EDU> t...@mace.Princeton.EDU (Alexander Naiba writes:
>I am firmly convinced that in all the galaxy, indeed in all the COSMOS,
>there is no Earth-like planet which have the same continents and seas as
>ours. No planet could possibly look exactly like ours from space. Is
>there another "Europe" elsewhere in the universe? No, I say! I am almost
>sort of totally convinced. Earth is UNIQUE.
>I also believe no civilization other than ours has ever evolved, for our
>civilization evolved in Mesopotamia, and there is NO copy of Mesopotamia
>anywhere else in the cosmos.
Abian answers: BRAVO for the above ! Good reasoning.
For the remaining I will only say that I have never mocked or put down or
deprecated you !
Christoph...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com
hath...@stsci.edu
> In article <1993Dec9...@stsci.edu> hath...@stsci.edu writes:
>>So exactly what is the probablity that Venus moved to such an orbit
>>will collide with Earth and destroy both planets along with all life?
>>There just ain't room for two planets in the same place, fella.
>
> Not really, if both planets have the same exact velocity and they were
> placed in orbit on opposite sides of the sun from each other in a two
> dimensional plane they would never collide right? If we did have the
> ability to do this we should also have the ability to adjust the orbit
> of venus slightly to compensate and keep her far from earth. Of course
> such a situation would make for a long trip from earth to venus.
>
Huh??? Maybe if you've circularized the orbits AND ignore the perturbing
effects of the other non-negligible planets in the solar system. Really
don't think this set-up would be stable. I think this was one of the
simplest reasonings in elementary astronomy books as to why there ISN'T
a duplicate earth hiding on the other side of the sun. It would slide
around in such a short amount of time that not only would be see it, we'd
eventually run into it. Yes of course, if we did have some means to adjust
orbits, sure you can put most any amount of matter anywhere you like and
keep adjusting it. On geological time scales???. But this is beyond the
fringes of even any reasonable science fiction story. Humans can barely
control life energy on earth; (see fer instance the laws on plant growth)
any idea how difficult it would be to control the movement of planets?
(Not to mention the real mystery of what the orbital parameters have to
do with AIDS??? Real wierd here.)
> - Dan
..
jba...@desire.wright.edu
> Abian answers:
>
> There is no other planet in the entire Cosmos which has the physical
> characteristics (mass, volume, etc) of our planet Earth and which also has the
> Celestial parameters in a Solar System similar to the Celestial parameters
> of our Planet Earth in its Solar System.
Ummm, Abian, have you actually looked at the mass differences of the planets?
Did you know that if you added the mass of EVERY object in the solar system
smaller than Venus, to Venus's mass, that it would still not be equal to the
Earth's mass? Yes that's right add to the mass of Venus:
Mars, Mercury, Pluto (and Charon), our Moon, all the main belt asteroids,
all of Jupiter's moons, all of Saturn's moons, all of Uranus's moons, all
of Neptune's moons, and the mass of every other object us, human beings
(i.e. Homo Sapiens) know of and it still won't mass as much as Earth.
Maybe the suggestion that you take a few astronomy courses (and some
planetary geology/geophysics) couldn't hurt.
Aaron M Woolsey
|> In <1993Dec12....@Princeton.EDU> t...@mace.Princeton.EDU (Alexander Naiba writes:
|>
|> >I am firmly convinced that in all the galaxy, indeed in all the COSMOS,
|> >there is no Earth-like planet which have the same continents and seas as
|> >ours. No planet could possibly look exactly like ours from space. Is
|> >there another "Europe" elsewhere in the universe? No, I say! I am almost
|> >sort of totally convinced. Earth is UNIQUE.
|>
|> >I also believe no civilization other than ours has ever evolved, for our
|> >civilization evolved in Mesopotamia, and there is NO copy of Mesopotamia
|> >anywhere else in the cosmos.
|>
|>
|> Abian answers: BRAVO for the above ! Good reasoning.
|>
|> For the remaining I will only say that I have never mocked or put down or
|> deprecated you !
|>
good for you, abian, i'm glad. all i have to say is that it seems that
someone has yanked your logic circuits. get real.
Aaron.
CHRIS DAHL
>In article <1993Dec09.09...@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com> Christoph...@magic-bbs.co
>
>
> Contrary to all the science fictions I do not believe that there are
>creatures which are more intelligent than us - human beings (i.e. homo-
>sapiens).
>
trial and error, we are the most advanced species this universe can come up
with. sure, i think our technology is pretty impressive, but we've got a long
way to go. to put our civilization at the top of the stack seems to show a
great deal of unjustifiable conceit on our part.
chris
crd...@zeus.tamu.edu
Alexander Abian
>In article <CHwM8...@news.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> Abian answers:
>>
>> There is no other planet in the entire Cosmos which has the physical
>> characteristics (mass, volume, etc) of our planet Earth and which also has the
>Ummm, Abian, have you actually looked at the mass differences of the planets?
>Did you know that if you added the mass of EVERY object in the solar system
>smaller than Venus, to Venus' mass, that it would still not be equal to the
>Earth's mass? Yes that's right add to the mass of Venus:
>Maybe the suggestion that you take a few astronomy courses (and some
>planetary geology/geophysics) couldn't hurt.
(I have never patronized you. A.A)
> Jim Batka
Abian answers:
If I am not mistaken Venus ' mass is 0.82 times that of the Earth's
mass and that is close enough for me. Please check your books since
I am wring this from memory: because 0.82 + 0.11 + 0.06 = 0.99 so that
Venus+Mars+Mercury are almost as massive as the Earth.
Besides, the gravity of Venus is 0.9 time that of the Earth's gravity
and that is close enough for me.
On the other hand, (if I remember correctly, please check) the gravity of
Mars is 0.38 that of of the gravity of the Earth and hardly a species like
Beethoven or Mozart could evolve at that low level of gravity. So, please,
let us not waste money on terraforming Mars !
Venus is the only candidate for becoming a Born Again Earth. Its present
very slow axial rotation (once every 243 days ?) will change as soon as
Venus is reorbited into an Earth-like orbit (its new orbit need not
necessarily be in the Earth's orbital plane). Also, there should be no fear
of the present ponderous poisonous atmosphere of Venus. That ponderous
atmosphere will be dissipated as soon as Venus' distance from the Sun will
increase from around 65 million miles to around 93 million miles.
Also, the green house effect will decrease considerably with reorbiting
of Venus.
So, all the space technology efforts should be focused on Reorbiting Venus
by the year 2004 ! This must be the chief priority of NASA.
Alexander Abian
>chris
>crd...@zeus.tamu.edu
Abian answers:
I am constantly being reminded that there are billions upon billions upon
billions Solar Systems in Cosmos and billions upon billions upon billions
planets. People even swear that there should be millions and millions
identical (in all respects and in all details ) planets to our planet Earth.
I firmly, strongly and unswervingly believe that our planet Earth is
Unique and our species is unique and that we are the most intelligent
species and that there is no duplication of our Planet, its civilization,
its history its monuments and its people and their languages.
But, again and again people are pointing out to me that there are millions
and millions planets duplicating our Planet Earth in all the minutest details:
Accordingly these people should believe that among other things:
1. There are million planets each having a city called Paris each
with a replica of Eifel Tower (or in various stages of its construction)
2. There are million planets each having a mountain called Mount Sina
from each of which at this very moment a live Moses is descending
carrying two stone tables bearing the Ten Commandments (or various
stages of this event).
3. There are million planets each having a garden called Gethsemane
in each of which at this very moment a live Christ is being kissed
by a live Judas in his betrayal of Christ (or various stages of this event)
4. There are million planets each having a city called Arbela where
at this very moment a live Alexander the Great is fighting Darius'
army (or various stages of this event)
5. There are million planets where on each there is a woman called
Cleaopatra who at this very moment is committing suicide by letting a
cobra to bite her breasts (or various stages of this event).
6. There are million planets where on each there is a man called Beethoven
who at this very moment is writing the final bars of his 9-th
symohony.
etc., etc.
Do you believe in 1 to 6 above ???!!!
We are unique, our planet is unique and the only feasible solution to
create another planet Earth which will sustain human life is to REORBIT
VENUS. The prospects of doubling all the creative genius of mankind lies
in the Reorbiting Venus.
Venus must be reorbited and can be reorbited by the year 2004 if NASA
makes Reorbiting Venus its chief priority.
DAG GILLIES
>In article <1993Dec7.1...@ericsson.se> etl...@etlxd30.ericsson.se writes:
>
>>In article 98...@dct.ac.uk, nwhi...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Nik Whitehead) writes:
>>>Okay, as a thought experiment then...
>>>
>>>Would the 'Space 1999' approach work if you timed it correctly? If you
>>>let off a large enough explosion on the equator at the right time, could
>>>you kick Venus out of orbit, then use a similar method to kick it into a
>>>new orbit? I appreciate that the force required would be rather large,
>>>but I don't have the time to do the maths. Any takers?
>>>
>>>Nik Whitehead
>>
>>
>>It's the only way I can see with present technology and to produce the
>>force necessary you would need to use nuclear warheads. Not being a
>>mathematican, I not sure what size an explosion you would need, but its
>>bound to produce a hell of alot of radiation, thereby possible negating
>>the whole reasin for moving the planet in the first place!
>>
>
>You think this can be done with present technology???
>
>Do a simple calculation. Work out the kinetic energy of Venus as it orbits
>the Sun (ie 1/2*m*v^2). Work out how many atomic bombs you'd need to
>detonate to change this by 1%. Still think it's feasible?
>
>Chris
>
>--
comes (as Chris Warrington says) from the scale of the energy required. An
allied problem which sheds a bit of light on the problem is that hoary old
one about how can you blow up a planet, like Alderaan in Star Wars. A rule
of thumb is that to destroy a planet you need to accelerate half its mass
to escape velocity. Taking the example of the earth, which has an escape
velocity of 11200 m/s, this is a specific escape energy of 62.72 MJ/kg. Now
multiply this by the earth's mass 5.98x10^24 kg and divide by two. You get
an answer of ~ 1.88x10^32 Joules. With one megaton being 4.18x10^15 J, this
is about 45 million billion megatons. Now it is instructive to note that
the orbital and rotational kinetic energies of the Earth are bigger than
this number. So in significantly changing either the orbital period or
rate of spin, you'd turn the planet into gravel. This is why Velikovsky
should have been beaten with a shitty stick until he said he was sorry. Even
if you took the long term approach and tried a mass driver (i.e.shoot bits of
Venus away at high speed) before very long all the waste heat from your mass
drivers would melt the planet's surface. And Venus is pretty hot already,
as you may recall!
BTW, I can't remember of the top of my head what the moment of inertia of
a sphere is. I seem to recall I_sphere=(5/3) m r^2, but that's probably crap.
Anyway, for those of you who want to do the sum, and have the right answer
for I, then what is the value of I w^2, where w is the angular velocity of
the Earth on its axis (2 Pi/86400 rad/s)? The orbital K.E. for the Earth
is of the order of 2.6x10^33 J i.e. 14 times the energy needed to blow it
up. I used the example of the earth because I can remember all the relevant
pysical data like mass, orbital radius etc off the top of my head.
______________________________________________________
David A. G. Gillies (D.A.G....@bradford.ac.uk)
(c) 1993 Wittgenstein's Amazing Underwater Supermarket
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rolf Meier
> Yes, I know all about the probabilities and possibilities.
> I know that a computer will be able to type on its own the entire work
>of Shakespeare (together with lots of gibberish) After all, the computer
>can type all possible sequences of letters occurring in all works of
>Shakespeare. But to pick up the one that will satisfy our intellectual
>aspirations, interest and demands,... for that, most probably the computers
>have to be made of flesh and of brain circulated by blood !!!
Just to put this in perspective, consider the probability of getting even
two lines of a Shakespeare play correct by spewing out random letters.
Assuming perhaps 60 characters, we have 8 x 10^84 combinations, or more
than the number of electrons in the Universe. The entire works
of Shakespeare? I don't think so.
_______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation
Rolf Meier
>So exactly what is the probablity that Venus moved to such an orbit
>will collide with Earth and destroy both planets along with all life?
>There just ain't room for two planets in the same place, fella.
You are thinking linearly. Remember, it is an "earth-like" orbit.
In my opinion the ideal orbit would be perpendicular to the ecliptic
and the period very close to that of the earth. There would be no
reason that the planets would ever get close to each other.
jba...@desire.wright.edu
> In <1993Dec12.1...@desire.wright.edu> jba...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>In article <CHwM8...@news.iastate.edu>, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>> Abian answers:
>>>
>>> There is no other planet in the entire Cosmos which has the physical
>>> characteristics (mass, volume, etc) of our planet Earth and which also has the
>
>>Ummm, Abian, have you actually looked at the mass differences of the planets?
>>Did you know that if you added the mass of EVERY object in the solar system
>>smaller than Venus, to Venus' mass, that it would still not be equal to the
>>Earth's mass? Yes that's right add to the mass of Venus:
>
>>Maybe the suggestion that you take a few astronomy courses (and some
>>planetary geology/geophysics) couldn't hurt.
> (I have never patronized you. A.A)
That's correct, you have never patronized me. My only questions is:
if you truely believe that Venus needs to be moved, just how do you think
it can be by 2004?
> If I am not mistaken Venus ' mass is 0.82 times that of the Earth's
> mass and that is close enough for me. Please check your books since
> I am wring this from memory: because 0.82 + 0.11 + 0.06 = 0.99 so that
> Venus+Mars+Mercury are almost as massive as the Earth.
Let me recheck my calculation here,
Venus = 0.82
Mars = 0.11
Mercury = 0.05
Moon = 0.0123
Io = 0.015
Europa = 0.008
Ganymede= 0.0248
Callisto= 0.018
Titan = 0.02261
Triton = 0.0221
Pluto = 0.002 ? (* Hardly seems fair to call this a planet *)
Charon = 0.00025 ?
----------------------
Total = 1.10506
Well, I appologize folks, my statement was incorrect. BTW, my reference
for this information was the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 71rst
edition.
James Lynn
> I firmly, strongly and unswervingly believe that our planet
>Earth is Unique and our species is unique and that we are the
>most intelligent species and that there is no duplication of our
>Planet, its civilization, its history its monuments and its
>people and their languages.
(list of six historical examples deleted to save space)
> Do you believe in 1 to 6 above ???!!!
No, in all honesty I can't really say that I believe any of these
events have ever been exactly duplicated on any other planet in
the cosmos.
But one problem I've always had with this 'move Venus' thing is
that if we had a duplicate of Earth it would be the most boring
place imaginable. Why would we want to travel to a world that's
exactly like the one we left behind? It would save a lot of
time, money, and work to just stay here and look at the Earth
we're sitting on right now.
Personally, I would find it a lot more interesting to visit an
alien world, with alien conditions, and an alien culture that's
nothing whatsoever like our own. Why bother going to another
world if there's nothing new there to discover? Why create a new
world if it'll just have the same old boring stuff we have right
here?
> We are unique, our planet is unique and the only feasible
>solution to create another planet Earth which will sustain human
>life is to REORBIT VENUS. The prospects of doubling all the
>creative genius of mankind lies in the Reorbiting Venus.
There's not enough creative genius now to fill up one Earth. If
we made a second one we'd just be spreading it twice as thin.
There's plenty of room on this planet to double it several times
over.
> Venus must be reorbited and can be reorbited by the year 2004
>if NASA makes Reorbiting Venus its chief priority.
I'd rather they made finding inhabited worlds around other stars
their chief priority. Or, more accurately, I'd rather congress
would let them make it their chief priority. I'm still bummed
about the plug being pulled on SETI. Sigh. Finding another
intelligent species would be a major turning point in human
history, and I'd love to see it happen in my lifetime, even
though I know the odds (far as we know) are overwhelmingly
against it. If intelligence is as rare as scientists think it
might be, we could have the only living civilization currently in
our galaxy. I find it very hard to believe we have the only one
in the hundreds of billions of galaxies we know exist, no matter
*how* rare intelligence is.
But that's just my opinion, which is no more, and certainly no
*less*, valid than yours.
--James
________________________________________________________________________
/ James Charles Lynn -o- jam...@efn.org \
|________________________________________________________________________|
| "No, she's absolutely right," said Zeb, patting the enormous pistol |
| at his hip. "This _is_ a penis substitute. After all, if I could |
| kill at a range of thirty meters with my penis, I wouldn't need to |
| carry this thing around, now would I?" |
\________________________________________________________________________/
James Lynn
>In <1993Dec12.1...@desire.wright.edu> jba...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Ummm, Abian, have you actually looked at the mass differences of the planets?
>>Did you know that if you added the mass of EVERY object in the solar system
>>smaller than Venus, to Venus' mass, that it would still not be equal to the
>>Earth's mass? Yes that's right add to the mass of Venus:
> If I am not mistaken Venus ' mass is 0.82 times that of the Earth's
> mass and that is close enough for me. Please check your books since
> I am wring this from memory: because 0.82 + 0.11 + 0.06 = 0.99 so that
> Venus+Mars+Mercury are almost as massive as the Earth.
I have to admit I was a bit dubious about that claim myself, but
I had no references handy so I couldn't say otherwise. For once
Abian has a more plausible sounding claim. This could be the
start of a trend...
> Also, the green house effect will decrease considerably with reorbiting
>of Venus.
Venus would be getting less light and heat from the sun, but
Venus' atmosphere is still far better at trapping and holding
heat than our world so it would remain uninhabitable. If we're
not careful about the amount of greenhouse gasses we produce,
Earth could become a born-again Venus.
> So, all the space technology efforts should be focused on Reorbiting Venus
>by the year 2004 ! This must be the chief priority of NASA.
Why 2004? Why not 2001 or 2010? (or 2061 or 10191 or the 25th
century or...)
--James
________________________________________________________________________
/ James Charles Lynn -o- jam...@efn.org \
|________________________________________________________________________|
| "Can't say I'm surprised to see you here, Ubiquitous Bob." |
\________________________________________________________________________/
Dennis Chamberlin
In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexa
nder Abian) writes:
>
> Moreover, we have the rarest opportunity to create an almost duplicate of
>our planet Earth and this via Reorbiting Venus (the twin of our planet
>Earth) by putting Venus in an Earth-like orbit.
>
Ya can't do it. It's just too damn heavy.
(Sigh.) I suppose this sounds negative... next time I'll try it in all-caps
and include some double-exclamatories.
Michael Moroney
>In article <1993Dec9...@stsci.edu> hath...@stsci.edu writes:
>>So exactly what is the probablity that Venus moved to such an orbit
>>will collide with Earth and destroy both planets along with all life?
>>There just ain't room for two planets in the same place, fella.
>You are thinking linearly. Remember, it is an "earth-like" orbit.
>In my opinion the ideal orbit would be perpendicular to the ecliptic
>and the period very close to that of the earth. There would be no
>reason that the planets would ever get close to each other.
This will still perturb both planets over the eons and will eventually
eject both from Earthlike orbits.
-Mike
Galcik
>There's not enough creative genius now to fill up one Earth. If
>we made a second one we'd just be spreading it twice as thin.
>There's plenty of room on this planet to double it several times
>over.
Yeah, yeah, but you're forgetting who you're talking to. If changing the orbit
and tilt of Earth will stop all disease, then *obviously* another planet would
double creative genius. I mean, just extrapolate. Besides, I think with the
REORBIT of VENUS, you get a bonus increase of 40 IQ when you mail in your
warranty card.
Galcik
>century or...)
Probably for the same reason a lot of SF shows/movies piss me off...because
it's 10 years from now. Like, a movie in 1959 would have time travellers from
the year 2159, etc.
Karl Hahn
> In <12DEC199...@sigma.tamu.edu> crd...@sigma.tamu.edu (CHRIS DAHL) writes:
[CHRIS DAHL stuff deleted]
> I am constantly being reminded that there are billions upon billions upon
> billions Solar Systems in Cosmos and billions upon billions upon billions
> planets. People even swear that there should be millions and millions
> identical (in all respects and in all details ) planets to our planet Earth.
[stuff deleted]
> Accordingly these people should believe that among other things:
>
[six historical specifics deleted]
>
> Do you believe in 1 to 6 above ???!!!
Very few people claim that there are millions -- or even one -- planet
that duplicates Earth in every detail. But, Professor Abian, why is it
not possible to have intellegence without an Eiffel Tower, Ten
Commandments, Judas Iscariot, Alexander, Cleopatra, or Beethoven?
If there were somewhere a planet that had similar mass, chemical
composition, orbital parameters, and mother star as earth, is there
any reason to believe it will evolve identically as earth. I think
not. There is reason, though, to believe that its evolution will
show some parallels to earth -- in particular that life might arise
and evolve into more complex forms. It is certainly plausible that a
lifeform could arise that communicates with a complex language, uses
tools, and depends upon an evolving societal memory for its
survival. Would such a lifeform look like a human? Probably not.
Still, such a race could develop its own (very different) culture and
technology, perhaps even to levels of sophistication that rival our
own. In all likelihood they would be so different from us that if we
ever encountered each other, communicating would be next to
impossible and require the life's work of some of the best minds of
both cultures.
Yes, Professor Abian -- the human race is, to within a vanishingly
small probability, unique in all the universe. Your argument fails,
however, to demonstrate that intelligence is unique.
[more Venus reorbiting stuff deleted]
--
| (V) | "Tiger gotta hunt. Bird gotta fly.
| (^ (`> | Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
| ((\\__/ ) | Tiger gotta sleep. Bird gotta land.
| (\\< ) der Nethahn | Man gotta tell himself he understand."
| \< ) |
| ( / | Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
| | |
| ^ |
Michael Moroney
> If I am not mistaken Venus ' mass is 0.82 times that of the Earth's
> mass and that is close enough for me. Please check your books since
> I am wring this from memory: because 0.82 + 0.11 + 0.06 = 0.99 so that
> Venus+Mars+Mercury are almost as massive as the Earth.
Looking through an encyclopedia, I find it interesting that each planet
in our solar system is more massive than all the ones smaller than it
(not counting all the moons once you get to the smaller planets)
So the planets often referred to as "twins" (Uranus and Neptune, Earth
and Venus) aren't as much of twins as often made out.
-Mike
Michael Moroney
> I am constantly being reminded that there are billions upon billions upon
>billions Solar Systems in Cosmos and billions upon billions upon billions
>planets. People even swear that there should be millions and millions
>identical (in all respects and in all details ) planets to our planet Earth.
I assume you do not believe Venus is inhabited.
The point that I'm sure most people were trying to make isn't that
there are zillions of inhabited Earths out there, but that there are
almost certainly literally billions of planets similar to Earth sizewise,
distancewise from its sun etc. that are certainly better candidates
for colonization than Venus. Whether any of them have intelligent life,
or life at all, we can only speculate.
-Mike
David Tyler
>My first thought was to use Pluto, which is apparently in a chaotic
>orbit. Perturb it enough to glance off Neptune into the inner solar
>system where it could interact with Venus and Mars. However,
in one of larry niven's books, earth is put in orbit around saturn using
a similar method. if memory serves, the engineers of this feat stuck a few
gigumbuos engine bells in neptune and lit the fuse, steering it near earth
and using it as a gravitational working body.
am i really contributing to a thread started by abian..? help.
dave
Alexander Abian
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>-Mike
Abian answers:
A very good observation. It may have some nontrivial significance.
Perhaps it could be checked also in the case of other solar Systems
for which there is a reliable data.
I would advise you to look into it. Your observation may be quite
valuable and may explain some basic facts.
James Kibo Parry
In <CHwM8...@news.iastate.edu>, Alexander Abian <ab...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> We have intelligence and we do not have to wait the abovementioned light
> years for possible or probable duplication of our planet Earth. Indeed,
> we can CLONE !!! We can and should CLONE a duplicate of our planet Earth!
I believe Roger Corman already made a movie about this, Mr. Albian.
> NASA's chief priority should be to Reorbit Venus by the year 2004.
Dr. Ruth Westheimer says that the Reorbiting Venus maneuver is not
nearly as much fun as the Venus Butterfly. She should know--she's a
certified doctor, Mr. Albian.
> There is nothing more sad than the reaction and answer to an intrepid idea
> which are reactions of mockery, of depreciation , of personal insults; and
> answers such as : it is crazy, it is stupid, it can't be done, it is insane
> it is impossible, it is ridiculous.! This kind of reaction is indeed sad,
> morbidly sad ! It kills the mind, it kills the soul it kills the spirit
DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- K.
James Kibo Parry
In article <abian.7...@pv3437.vincent.iastate.edu>,
Alexander Abian <ab...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> 1. There are million planets each having a city called Paris each
> with a replica of Eifel Tower (or in various stages of its construction)
>
> 2. There are million planets each having a mountain called Mount Sina
> from each of which at this very moment a live Moses is descending
> carrying two stone tables bearing the Ten Commandments (or various
> stages of this event).
>
> 3. There are million planets each having a garden called Gethsemane
> in each of which at this very moment a live Christ is being kissed
> by a live Judas in his betrayal of Christ (or various stages of this event)
>
> 4. There are million planets each having a city called Arbela where
> at this very moment a live Alexander the Great is fighting Darius'
> army (or various stages of this event)
>
> 5. There are million planets where on each there is a woman called
> Cleaopatra who at this very moment is committing suicide by letting a
> cobra to bite her breasts (or various stages of this event).
>
> 6. There are million planets where on each there is a man called Beethoven
> who at this very moment is writing the final bars of his 9-th
> symohony.
7. There is at least one planet where Alexander Albian is sane.
> Do you believe in 1 to 6 above ???!!!
I agree with you, Alex, I don't believe in any of the seven.
Reward yourself with a cool frosty hydrofluoric acid enema.
-- K.
Stephen Watson
>[sci.astro] by way of alt.fan.robert-mcelwaine
But just for talk.origins:
>> 4. There are million planets each having a city called Arbela where
>> at this very moment a live Alexander the Great is fighting Darius'
>> army (or various stages of this event)
Now that's something I'd love to see: Alexander "the Great" Abian in a
net.shootout with Darius LeCointe ;-) ;-)
--
| wat...@sce.carleton.ca (Steve Watson) | Not Carleton's opinion. Moreover: |
| "I've got better things to do than argue with every wrong-headed crackpot |
| with an ignorant opinion! I'm a busy man! *I* say, either agree with me |
| or take a hike! I'm right, period! End of discussion!" - Calvin & Hobbes |
Erik Max Francis
> in one of larry niven's books, earth is put in orbit around saturn using
> a similar method. if memory serves, the engineers of this feat stuck a few
> gigumbuos engine bells in neptune and lit the fuse, steering it near earth
> and using it as a gravitational working body.
It was actually Jupiter that Earth was put in orbit around, and Uranus
was used to lure it into Jovian orbit.
The book is _A World Out of Time_.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!apple!uuwest!max m...@west.darkside.com __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W / \
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. All things that are, are lights. -)(- \__/
Alexander Abian
>In sci.astro, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> Thus, (for reasons already stated several times) I propose reorbiting
>>Venus. I need no more proof. The above reasoning is proof enough for me and
>>I owe no one any proof.
>> Naturally, if demanded (especially with the obvious zeal of finding
>>me wrong), I reserve my right to ask too: "give me a proof to the
>>contrary".
Then Galcik continues:
>Yeah, okay, so in effect: "I owe no one proof, yet everyone give me proof".
Abian answers: I have not made the above statement (in quotes) you have made it
> It's as if you give me a complex problem, and you tell me "the answer is
>3", and won't tell me why.
Abian answers: The analogy is not convincing to me.
>>Show me one example of another planet on which right at this moment a
>>live cobra is biting a live Cleopatra's breasts. Just convince me of the
>>existence of one such planet among billions upon billions upon billions upon
>>billions and billions of planets.
>Okay, here's my proof:
>In this vast, infinite Cosmos, WE are not UNIQUE. Mankind is perfectly and
>without fail DUPLICATED in at LEAST ONE OTHER PLANET ! By observation and
>deduction I am SURE that there is ANOTHER planet where someone is typing THE
>SAME TEXT AS MYSELF ! and is refuting the same argument !. We MUST without
>FAIL >convince the astronomers of the world to FIND THIS PLANET by the year
2093 !.
Abian answers: If your proof satisfies you that is fine.
>There. My proof is equivalent to yours.
Abian answers: Your statement above is not convincing to me. If it convinces
you that is fine.
Galcik
>In <2eq28q...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Galcik) writes:
>>In sci.astro, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>> Thus, (for reasons already stated several times) I propose reorbiting
>>>Venus. I need no more proof. The above reasoning is proof enough for me and
>>>I owe no one any proof.
>>> Naturally, if demanded (especially with the obvious zeal of finding
>>>me wrong), I reserve my right to ask too: "give me a proof to the
>>>contrary".
>
>Abian answers: I have not made the above statement (in quotes) you have made i
>t
Well of course you didn't. I was summarizing for you. Can't you see that that
is equivalent to what you said in those two paragraphs? Okay, here's what you
actually said: "I owe no one any proof...give me a proof to the contrary."
There. This is equivalent to "I owe no one proof, yet everyone give me proof."
>> It's as if you give me a complex problem, and you tell me "the answer is
>>3", and won't tell me why.
>
>Abian answers: The analogy is not convincing to me.
Okay, let me try this, then: is Fermat's Last Theorem proven? It's been
quantitatively proven for several million (perhaps billions?) different
combinations of variables. But is it considered to be proven? No, because there
just may be a case where the theorem works. We've used computers to check out
billions of possibilities, but we can't be sure.
In this same way, I say your theorem "There is no other life in the Universe"
is not proven. We may have the opportunity to look at billions of planets, but
there are plenty we CAN'T see. If there is life on only one other planet, your
theorem is false.
In the same way, if I tried to tell you there was an identical Earth, I should
give you proof of my statement. Of course, no one can prove it. Anyone who
makes that statement could only say "the odds are in its favor," but can't say
with certainty that it is so. (I don't believe it anyway.)
>>Okay, here's my proof:
>
>>In this vast, infinite Cosmos, WE are not UNIQUE. Mankind is perfectly and
>>without fail DUPLICATED in at LEAST ONE OTHER PLANET ! By observation and
>>deduction I am SURE that there is ANOTHER planet where someone is typing THE
>>SAME TEXT AS MYSELF ! and is refuting the same argument !. We MUST without
>>FAIL >convince the astronomers of the world to FIND THIS PLANET by the year
>2093 !.
>
>Abian answers: If your proof satisfies you that is fine.
Yeah, it is. But it wouldn't be fine if I was trying to convince people to
believe me.
Don't you understand? The only way you can convince people of something is to
show them proof. How could you get the People of the World to believe something
on only your say-so? You say, "I believe this. Help me do it." We say, "Oh? How
do you know it will work?" You say, "Because I believe this. Help me do it." We
say, "yeah, okay, but how can you be so sure?" You say, "I am sure because I
believe this. Help me do it."
No one would want to help you do such an impressive thing if you don't tell
them how you know it will work. It looks like something you're just taking on
faith. We don't have the same faith as you, so we require proof. With no proof,
you're on your own.
James Lynn
>Don't you understand? The only way you can convince people of something is to
>show them proof.
This is demonstrably wrong. Religions, for one, ask (if not
require) their members to believe in things for which no proof
exists. In fact, a truly devout believer will usually hang on to
his/her beliefs no matter how much proof to the contrary you can
show them. This is known as 'faith.'
>How could you get the People of the World to believe something
>on only your say-so?
Jesus managed it. Lots of others have as well. Getting people
to believe something isn't really that hard, if it happens to be
something they want to believe in.
>You say, "I believe this. Help me do it." We say, "Oh? How
>do you know it will work?" You say, "Because I believe this. Help me do it." We
>say, "yeah, okay, but how can you be so sure?" You say, "I am sure because I
>believe this. Help me do it."
I have a hunch that showing Abian conclusive proof (if we had
any) would be a waste of time, because he'd come up with
rationalizations to support his views and discredit yours. And
he is hardly unique in this.
>No one would want to help you do such an impressive thing if you don't tell
>them how you know it will work. It looks like something you're just taking on
>faith. We don't have the same faith as you, so we require proof. With no proof,
>you're on your own.
Even if Abian had conclusive proof, lots of people would debate and
nitpick it until there's nothing left.
In other words, this tangent is even more pointless than the rest
of the thread.
--James
-------
jam...@efn.org
Erik Max Francis
> Abian answers: If your proof satisfies you that is fine.
The same might be said of you: "Good for you, Abian."
> >There. My proof is equivalent to yours.
>
> Abian answers: Your statement above is not convincing to me. If it convince
> you that is fine.
The problem is that your statements are not at all convincing to anyone
else, either. But, "If it convinces you, that is fine." Just convince
yourself a little more quietly.
Alexander Abian
>Galcik (gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote:
>>Don't you understand? The only way you can convince people of something is to
>>show them proof.
>This is demonstrably wrong. Religions, for one, ask (if not
>require) their members to believe in things for which no proof
>exists. In fact, a truly devout believer will usually hang on to
>his/her beliefs no matter how much proof to the contrary you can
>show them. This is known as 'faith.'
>>How could you get the People of the World to believe something
>>on only your say-so?
>Jesus managed it. Lots of others have as well. Getting people
>to believe something isn't really that hard, if it happens to be
>something they want to believe in.
>
>
>Even if Abian had conclusive proof, lots of people would debate and
>nitpick it until there's nothing left.
>--James
Abian answers:
I like your believing in the power of beliefs.
Alexander Abian
>>
>>
>>Abian says: If your proof satisfies you that is fine.
>Yeah, it is. But it wouldn't be fine if I was trying to convince people to
>believe me.
Abian answers:
So, for you it is important that "people believe you" , i.e., at the end
everything boils down to "belief".
Well, I believe what I said about "Reorbiting Venus " about "Equivalence
of Time and Mass" and any other things that I said.
Galcik continues:
>Don't you understand? The only way you can convince people of something is to
>show them proof.
Abian answers:
The only way is for people to believe in what I say and believe by their own
volition. I don't want to convince any one of anything (please do not
attribute things to me which are not said by me>. People will believe me by
their own volition.
If for you,"proof" is important, as I said, it is fine. If you make out of
"proof" a "religion" , it is fine. If you believe in proofs and make proofs
your "beliefs" it is fine.
Galcik continues:
>How could you get the People of the World to believe something on only your
>say-so? You say, "I believe this"
Abian answers:
The same way that you religiously believe in "proving and proofs" - just as
you yourself by your own volition came to believing in "proofs".
Galcik continues:
> We don't have the same faith as you, so we require proof. With no proof,
>you're on your own.
Abian answers:
If you make out of "proofs" your faith, your religion and your belief, it is
fine. I never asked you to join me.
Alexander Abian
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> Abian answers: If your proof satisfies you that is fine.
>The same might be said of you: "Good for you, Abian."
>> >There. My proof is equivalent to yours.
>>
>> Abian answers: Your statement above is not convincing to me. If it
>> convince you that is fine.
>The problem is that your statements are not at all convincing to anyone
>else, either. But, "If it convinces you, that is fine." Just convince
>yourself a little more quietly.
>Erik Max Francis.
Abian answers:
The feeling is mutual.
Bill Newcomb
->Dr. Ruth Westheimer says that the Reorbiting Venus maneuver is not
Ruth Westheimer went to my college--part of my tuition was paid out of
a fellowship fund she created to honor her dad. Unfortunately, I have been
informed that it wasn't THE Ruth Westheimer. The delusion was fun
while it lasted, tho.
Bill
--
Bill Newcomb I ask you what to say/ with our eyes and our antennae
nu...@netcom.com -The hon. rev. Fred Lane
Alexander Abian
>nitpick it until there's nothing left.
Abian answers:
This is so, and it is a fundamental part of the human nature in its struggle
to inflate its ego, to oppose anything not first thought by it , to knock down
any competition, to impose its own ideas, to diminish the importance of any
competitor. All these to inflate the ego and to feel secure.
All the criticisms to my REORBITING VENUS and EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS
stem from the insecurity feelings of the critics. They sense the presence
of a genuinely ingenious ideas, solid ideas, brilliant ideas - which however
were not conceived by the critics. As a consequence of the inner envy, their
first reaction is to tear my proposals apart, to ridicule them, to deprecate
and denigrate them. Why ? because they felt to be outshined, they felt to be
left behind, they felt that they are not leading . They feel that someone
else is imposing his views on them and not they are the ones who are imposing
their views on him.
Yes, imposition of ones ideas upon the others , craving for inflating of ones
ego those are the real motivating forces behind everything, especially, and
definitely especially among "scientists"!! This is natural, there is nothing
wrong with it - it is a struggle for survival, it is a struggle for power, it
is will to power - it is life itself - without it there would be no life!.
Very, very often, a "scientists" upon hearing a bright, ingenious idea of a
"dear colleague" and which was not of his own, goes home in the most depressed
revengeful mood, trying to find some flaw, some weakness some mistake in his
"dear colleagues" idea. Calls other people, tries first to ridicule
the idea, then tries to tear the idea apart and kill it if possible. Why ?
because of the insatiable craving for not to be outshined, for not to be
ignored, and for the insatiable craving to be the author of a brilliant
idea. In short he mourns the missing of the opportunity of inflating his
ego and imposing his ideas.
All this is understandable, I do the same things. But, I admit and I do not
hide behind the slogans : "not scientific", "not this and not that".
I consider REORBITING VENUS an outstanding, ingenious idea. I consider our
planet absolutely unique in the whole Cosmos and this for many reasons
that I expressed (which apparently convince me only and convince not a single
"scientist">. For many reasons that I have explained (and which apparently
convince me only and convince not a single "scientist") a duplication
of our planet Earth is extremely valuable and is a must. I am not going to
repeat these reasonings of mine that apparently convince no "scientist".
I feel that deep in their hearts many and many among netters find my idea
ingenious, imaginative and outstanding. However, out of envy (quite natural
and quite understandable - no flame, no criticism on my part) they try to
ridicule and dismiss them and sully and defame me. This, understandably so,
makes them feel secure and that gives them the opportunity to impose
their views which is of course always justifiable in their eyes.
The idea of REORBITING VENUS is here to stay, it will be the central issue of
astronomy, physics and astrophysics, and, deep in your hearts, you know it.
The fact that I prposed the REORBITING VENUS, the fact that I am imposing
this idea, inflates my ego and makes me feel secure.
Following the many, many examples of newsnet postings, I also ask and
solicit advise, help, suggestions from the netters as to how to proceed the
reorbiting Venus.
I would appreciate if instead of trying to suffocate my ideas, the netters
give suggestions, provide solutions and advice. I am acting according to
many, many examples in the postings - asking for suggestions. Post
suggestions and do not flame !
That TIME HAS INERTIA and that there is EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS is
also a most ingenious, insightful and extremely fundamental idea. Again, I
am not surprised that it convinces only me and apparently not a single
"scientist". Indeed, not a single "scientist" so far ( and I know,
someone immediately will say and "never") is even would like to mildly
accept that TIME HAS INERTIA. Deep in their hearts however, they do admire
the boldness, the significance of my idea. But, because of the inner envy,
and because of the fact that they were not the first to come up with the idea
of Time having inertia and being equivalent to mass, they ridicule, put down
and dismiss the idea. This, as I said, is quite natural. List, out of
jealousy, would lock the doors in the waiting room not to hear the applause
that the audience was giving to Chopin. Most probably Chopin did the same
thing, however was not caught doing that.
Ladies and gentlemen. Enough of hiding behind the slogans "not scientific"
"not this and that " admit that "THE EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS" is an
outstanding breakthru idea.
The idea TIME HAS INERTIA and the EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS is here
to stay. It will be the central idea of physics, astronomy and
astrophysics and deep in your hearts you know it. The fact that I am the
first to annunciate this idea and impose it, inflates my ego and makes me
feel secure.
Dave Toland
[
So, for you it is important that "people believe you" , i.e., at the end
everything boils down to "belief".
Well, I believe what I said about "Reorbiting Venus " about "Equivalence
of Time and Mass" and any other things that I said.
and
[
The only way is for people to believe in what I say and believe by their own
volition. I don't want to convince any one of anything (please do not
attribute things to me which are not said by me>. People will believe me by
their own volition.
If for you,"proof" is important, as I said, it is fine. If you make out of
"proof" a "religion" , it is fine. If you believe in proofs and make proofs
your "beliefs" it is fine.
]
Certainly a mathemetician such as yourself would recognize the importance
of proof in any mathematical theory. However, since we're talking about a
*physical* conjecture, how do we turn *that* into a theory?
First we would need quantitative analysis, with sufficient detail for
peer review. This is also true for the engineering proposal for moving
Venus, by the way.
For a new theory to be accepted, it has to fit with the body of data that
already exists within its influence. Since we know very little about other
star systems' planets, there's not much data here to fit with.
The other important element for acceptance of a physical theory is testability.
What *predictions* can be made based upon this theory that are in some way
testable, and that will distinguish it from accepted theory? That is
particularly difficult in this case, because unless you can catalog every
planet around every star in the Universe, there is no way to *prove* that
there is not another earth, identical to our own in every respect except
wheer it is in it's history (ignoring relativistic problems with simultaneity).
Personally, I do not believe there *is* another earth identical to our own.
The Universe is finite according to currently accepted theory, and comprise
of a finite (albeit extremely large) number of quantum states. Even if
there were two identical earths at some instant in time, quantum uncertainty
would immediately begin to cause divergence.
But you have actually thrown in *two* conjectures at once, and not really
distinguished them. The first is that Earth is unique, that there is no other
world *exactly* like our own. The other is that there is no other world
similar enough to earth for intelligent carbon-based life on a par with
our own to develop. Even that second would be a very narrow view, as
there is no evidence that intelligent life *must* be organized around
carbon chemistry. Granted, chemically carbon has unique properties which
make it extremely well suited as the unifying element (no pun intended)
in a vast family of complex molecules leading to life on our world, but
that is not even close to proof that there aren't other sysyems that could
also lead to life and intelligence - carbon chemistry is just what we happen
to see because it is the basis for our *own* life and therefore displays
its versatility well in our environment.
But even limiting ourselves to the narrow definition of carbon-based life
in the temperature range of liquid water, there have been compelling
mathematical projections arguing for an abundance of intelligent life
in our own galaxy (if we are indeed an example of intelligent life - sometimes
a quick scan of the Internet will make one doubt this :-). Some of the
factors in these analyses are highly speculative to be sure, even though they
were chosen to be conservative, but as we venture out of this one star system,
some at least of these factors will be more accurately known.
So IMO at least, the question of extrasolar intelligence is far from settled
at this time, but best guess at this time is that it exists in quantity.
The equation I mentioned has a name, I believe, but I don't know it. The
first time I saw it was in a book written in the mid-1960's, entitled
"We Are Not Alone". I've forgotten who the author was, but it was a
well reasoned treatise, as I recall.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
d...@phlan.sw.stratus.com | "This race for spent."
(Dave Toland) |
Galcik
>
>>Don't you understand? The only way you can convince people of something is to
>>show them proof.
>
>This is demonstrably wrong. Religions, for one, ask (if not
>require) their members to believe in things for which no proof
>exists. In fact, a truly devout believer will usually hang on to
>his/her beliefs no matter how much proof to the contrary you can
>show them. This is known as 'faith.'
Yeah, but I addressed the faith question later in the post, which you quoted
later anyway.
>>How could you get the People of the World to believe something
>>on only your say-so?
>
>Jesus managed it. Lots of others have as well. Getting people
>to believe something isn't really that hard, if it happens to be
>something they want to believe in.
Yeah, but it'd probably take a message from the Pope to the effect of "We
support the REORBITING of VENUS." Besides, not even the People of the World all
believe in Jesus. I probably don't.
(Besides, a nitpicker who believes in the Bible could probably argue that Jesus
*did* give proof, by way of the occasional offhand miracle. That's a whole
entirely different other thing, though.)
Which isn't the point anyway. What I meant was, ABIAN couldn't make people
believe him on *his* say-so. Refer to the posts in this thread for the last
month or so for proofs to that effect.
>In other words, this tangent is even more pointless than the rest
>of the thread.
Oh? Well, thanks for contributing, then.
For the record, I've tried taking this discussion with Abian to email, but he
won't have it. He hasn't replied to me privately at all. Either way, the
thread's hardly taking one out of every three posts, so I don't feel guilty.
Galcik
>volition. I don't want to convince any one of anything (please do not
>attribute things to me which are not said by me>. People will believe me by
>their own volition.
I'm not trying to attribute erroneous things to you. What you're seeing is my
confusion over an apparent conflict: on one hand, you tell everyone about the
REORBITING of VENUS, but on the other hand you say you don't want to convince
anyone of anything. See, I thought you were actually trying to convince people.
I thought you wanted people to go along with what you're saying. If not, fine;
I no longer have an argument if you don't care whether people are convinced or
not.
>The same way that you religiously believe in "proving and proofs" - just as
>you yourself by your own volition came to believing in "proofs".
Hey! This is a good point. I have to think about this. It certainly does call
all of logic into question. I suppose any proof is based on a certain number of
definitions, which you have to take on faith. If I have a mathematical proof
that starts with the definition "1+1=2", one has to believe that is true. Hm.
>If you make out of "proofs" your faith, your religion and your belief, it is
>fine. I never asked you to join me.
Ah, but see, I thought you were. I thought that, by all your posts on Venus,
you were asking people to agree with you. So, you're not, then? You're just
posting it because it's a public place to vent your spleen?
bill nelson
... deleted ...
: > I know the arguments of probabilities for the existence of a planet
: >where homosapiens like us exist, etc., etc. That prbability is so
: >small, so infinitesimally small that for the spontaneous duplication of our
: >planet Earth it would require (10000...00000) ^(10000 ... 00000) light
: >centuries and even then there is no guarantee !
:
: actually I think a spontaneous duplication of any planet would be
: impossible. As far as scientists have been able to figure....planets
: usually take quite a while to evolve. assuming you meant a planet
: evolving such as our pretty earth did....I'm wondering where you
: got these figures. Of course, far be it for me to doubt such
: an exact estimation (10000...00000? what kind of number is that?)
It is an abian number - what more do you need? Don't expect a rational
explanation for its origin. Abian may know mathematics, but he knows next
to nothing about physics or biology - which should be very obvious from
his postings.
:
: >The aim and the goal of NASA must be to reorbit Venus by the year 2004 !
:
: Does anyone else think this guy is a complete dufus.
Of course - which is why he is in many kill files. If people would simply
ignore him - then we would be oblivious to his presence.
Bill
Mark Neeley
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> NASA's goal and the chief priority must be to Reorbit Venus by the year
>2004. Reorbiting Venus and putting it into an Earth-like orbit and thus
>creating a Born Again Earth is the inevitable event that human genius will
>achieve in its insatiable and inexorable quest for power over the entire
>Cosmos and for the imposition of its own will on the entire Celestial
>organization.
But if we did this, wouldn't Earth and Venus run into each other?
Just curious.
Mark
Michael Short
Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away. Of course, to get there,
it'll have to travel in an outward spiral, so it's bound to swing close
by. But this is part of the plan, allowing NASA to retrieve that
barely-working Venus probe with one of the barely-working Shuttles.
And if it passes *real* close, why it'll be manna from Heaven and free
oil all over again! (can you say "Velikovsky"....and what an appropriate
newsgroup :-)
Seasons' Greetings!
--
Michael
Tom Hopkins
msh...@heisenberg.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short) writes:
>In article <neeleyCI...@netcom.com>,
>Mark Neeley <nee...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <abian.7...@pv343d.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>> NASA's goal and the chief priority must be to Reorbit Venus by the year
>>>2004. Reorbiting Venus and putting it into an Earth-like orbit and thus
>>>creating a Born Again Earth is the inevitable event that human genius will
>>>achieve in its insatiable and inexorable quest for power over the entire
>>>Cosmos and for the imposition of its own will on the entire Celestial
>>>organization.
>>
>>But if we did this, wouldn't Earth and Venus run into each other?
>>
>
>Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
But we can't do that! There is already a planet 180 degrees out of
Earth's orbit. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but I
do recall that they were believed to walk with their feet pointed
backwards. If this is the case, they wouldn't even see us coming and
would be caught totally unaware by this feet of engineering. At least
we can be assured that those who survived to launch a counterattack
would be unable to shoot straight.
I suppose they might leave mines in orbit for the earth to run into...
All I am saying is, just like it's bad karma to hunt pink fuzzy
unicorns out of season, shouldn't we let be our brothers across the
orbit?
-Tom Hopkins
somebody out there help me with the name...
Greg Smith
Either would suck.
Erik Max Francis
> And if it passes *real* close, why it'll be manna from Heaven and free
> oil all over again! (can you say "Velikovsky"....and what an appropriate
> newsgroup :-)
Or an appropriate thread, anyway. Equally silly.
Cyberspace Buddha
>msh...@heisenberg.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Short) writes:
>>Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
>
>Earth's orbit. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but I
>do recall that they were believed to walk with their feet pointed
>backwards.
hmmm... I don't recall the characters on Gor walking strangely.
The Preist-Kings certainly walk differently, but they're not
indigenous to Gor...
cheers,
cb
--
Cyberspace Buddha % "I like trees, in the forest." --me
c...@bga.com / "Hemp: It's not just for smoking anymore." --me
/(o\ war & / "Is there any escape from noise?" --negativland
\o)/ peace % "Hemp for victory!" --U.S. Govt.
David Toland
[
Pardon me, but if they were in the "exact same orbit", how did they have
different speeds?
Brian Waugh
Hopkins) wrote:
>
> >Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
>
> But we can't do that! There is already a planet 180 degrees out of
> Earth's orbit. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but I
> do recall that they were believed to walk with their feet pointed
> backwards.
It has been called by two names, Antichtheon and Vulcan, and spawned a film
or two. BTW, which way do Mr. Spock's feet point?
Brian "At least that's what I remember" Waugh
Chuck Musciano
> >
> >Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
>
> But we can't do that! There is already a planet 180 degrees out of
> Earth's orbit. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but I
> do recall that they were believed to walk with their feet pointed
> backwards. If this is the case, they wouldn't even see us coming and
> would be caught totally unaware by this feet of engineering. At least
> we can be assured that those who survived to launch a counterattack
> would be unable to shoot straight.
Wasn't that planet known as Nemesis?
Now that you've brought this up, I think we should begin reorbiting
Venus *immediately*. 'Cause if we don't do it, the Nemesians will!
--
Chuck Musciano ARPA: ch...@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation AOL : CMusciano
PO Box 37, MS 16/1912 AT&T: (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902 Fax : (407) 729-3363
A good newspaper is never good enough,
but a lousy newspaper is a joy forever. -- Garrison Keillor
Dieter Kreuer
rien...@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Roderick M. Riensche) wrote:
> Two planets of unequal mass cannot occupy the same elliptical orbital
> path AND travel at the same speed. For example, assume Venus has less
> mass than Earth (I don't know if this is true.. it's hypothetical). Put
> it in the same orbital path as Earth, but try to maintain the same
> speed. The faster orbital speed will cause greater centripetal force on
> Venus and send it careening out across the galaxy.
Not so, that would require to speed up Venus by 17 km/s, but the
orbit would become elliptical, and the planet would eventually have
an encounter with Earth. Then, it might be possible that Venus was
shot into space and Earth deorbited.
There are are other reasons why "the same orbits" are impossible. If
Earth and Venus had exactly the same mass, and Earth was exactly opposite
to Venus in the same orbit, both planets would be in a subtle balance,
like a pencil standing on its tip. Jupiter would quickly cause this
balance to breakdown, and Venus (or Earth) would start to drift. This
would cause the direction of the gravity vector to change since the
center of gravity would not coincide with the exact center of the Sun
anymore. The offset forces would then cause Earth and Venus to close
up to each other, and then we would experience the same as cited above.
Then, there are other forces which would disturb the alignment of three
bodies: the Moon, which makes Earth wobble in its orbit, passing stars,
the drift of perihelion due to general relativity and so on.
Of course, there would be one possibility: we have geostationary
satellites, which all share the same orbit (approximately). The
way this is accomplished is a frequent use of thrusters and a reservoir
of fuel for ten years. So, who is going to build big motors to fly
Venus and Earth around? :-)
----------------------- ---------------------------------
Dieter Kreuer ## ======== / die...@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Lehrstuhl Informatik IV __ /// /# / dieter%informatik.rwth-
RWTH Aachen ## /// # # / aach...@uunet.uu.net
D-52056 Aachen ## /// ##### /...!informatik.rwth-aachen.de!dieter
Germany ==== # / PHONE: +49 241 80 21413
Greg Earle
>Personally, I would find it a lot more interesting to visit an
>alien world, with alien conditions, and an alien culture that's
>nothing whatsoever like our own.
Hey, I can do that right now. Just jump in my car and drive 3 hours down to
Tijuana :-)
>I'd rather [NASA] made finding inhabited worlds around other stars
>their chief priority. Or, more accurately, I'd rather Congress
>would let them make it their chief priority. I'm still bummed
>about the plug being pulled on SETI. Sigh. Finding another
>intelligent species would be a major turning point in human
>history, and I'd love to see it happen in my lifetime, even
>though I know the odds (far as we know) are overwhelmingly
>against it.
Things like SETI should be no more than a background task (no pun intended)
and certainly shouldn't be NASA's chief priority. There's too much hard
science to be done first, sports fans. Let the Little Green (Wo)Men wait ...
Personally, I think we should all get down on our knees and thank <Diety>
that we're alive in this day & age and have therefore been witness to what
I consider the 3 most important events in Human history - Apollo 11, the
Viking landings and the Voyagers.
(One of the things that excites me the most is being witness to things never
before possible in all of previous Human history. Imagine being Montgolfier
[sp?] and being one of the first-ever people to see the Earth from a balloon.)
Disclaimer: I work at JPL; I am biased (-:
--
- Greg Earle
Phone: (818) 353-8695 FAX: (818) 353-1877 [Call # again if
Internet: ea...@isolar.Tujunga.CA.US you get data tone]
UUCP: isolar!ea...@elroy.JPL.NASA.GOV a.k.a. ...!elroy!isolar!earle
Nick Haines
NOTE: The following conclusions are in no way scientific. I pulled them
out of my <insert orifice here> using a very limited knowledge of physics.
You don't say.
Two planets of unequal mass cannot occupy the same elliptical orbital
path AND travel at the same speed.
Wrong. Orbits do not depend in a significant way on the mass of the
orbiting body (if it is << the mass of the primary, as is the case in
this instance). If the Earth had the mass of a pebble, or of this
article, it would continue in the same orbit (modulo greater effects
of solar wind &c).
Nick Haines ni...@cmu.edu
Christopher Vincent Chan
writes:
>In article <2f8vii$i...@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, hop...@nemesis.EBay.Sun.COM
(Tom Hopkins) writes:
>> >
>> >Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
>>
>> But we can't do that! There is already a planet 180 degrees out of
> Now that you've brought this up, I think we should begin reorbiting
>Venus *immediately*. 'Cause if we don't do it, the Nemesians will!
>
>--
>
>Chuck Musciano ARPA: ch...@trantor.harris-atd.com
causes comets to hit the earth every 26 million years.
I have a book by a Dr. Richard Muller describing this theory.
However, I don't know enough about astronomy to not believe it
or believe it.
chris chan
Jelmer Jellema
>Two planets of unequal mass cannot occupy the same elliptical orbital
>path AND travel at the same speed. For example, assume Venus has less
>mass than Earth (I don't know if this is true.. it's hypothetical). Put
>it in the same orbital path as Earth, but try to maintain the same
>speed. The faster orbital speed will cause greater centripetal force on
>Venus and send it careening out across the galaxy. Or, establish Venus
>in a stable orbit, and then slow Earth down to match the speed of Venus.
>The earth will experience less centripetal (or am I thinking centrifugal
>[sp?]) force and will be overpowered by the gravitational pull of the
>Sun, where it will be incinerated.
We can at anytime decide to equal the 2 masses by sending some garbage
to venus. That is: If The Others have not done that allready.
Jelmer.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jelmer Jellema, Amsterdam | If it's not love, then it's the bomb |
|jel...@swi.psy.uva.nl | that will bring us together. (Smiths) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Erik Max Francis
> Things like SETI should be no more than a background task (no pun intended)
> and certainly shouldn't be NASA's chief priority. There's too much hard
> science to be done first, sports fans. Let the Little Green (Wo)Men wait ...
Agreed. This is an especially good point when you consider that by many
estimates, there are a small enough number of technological civilizations
in the Galaxy that it would take quite a long time of blind searching to
come up with one that just happened to be transmitting toward us at the
right time. They're out there, but space is very empty.
In addition, most people phrase it as "making contact with alien
civilizations." Contact, I think, is probably too string a word. About
all the benefit that it will cause is that 1. we'll know they're out
there, and 2. we will probably know which star system the transmission
came from.
A good feeling about our place in the Universe is always a good idea, but
there are more important things. Get the thing set up whenever
convenient, and let it keep on running.
Gary Heston
>In article <CIFw3...@whq2-top.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Greg Smith <greg.n...@DaytonOH.NCR.COM> writes:
>[
>I'm not astomomy/physics expert but I had a little shareware program called
>Orbit. It allowed me to create solar system simulations. When I placed two
>bodies in the exact same orbit with one body moving slightly faster, the
>faster body eventually caught> up with the slow body and caused it to
>decellerate (and its orbit to decay), while the faster body accellerated
>and broke orbit. Providing of course that the bodies didn't collide.
>]
>Pardon me, but if they were in the "exact same orbit", how did they have
>different speeds?
Different masses.
You know, this could solve some problems for us.
All the ecofreaks worried about global warming could get on the accelerated
body, since it's enlarged orbit would cause it to absorb less heat (thereby
avoiding the warming problem) while those fearing the coming ice age could
get on the slowed one, as it orbits closer to the sun and thereby captures
more heat from the sun.
The rest of us could get rich from moving all those bozos around, and
move someplace worthwhile, like Alpha Centuri.
(Assuming, of course, that both bodies weren't ripped apart by tidal
forces, but I digress...)
--
Gary Heston SCI Systems, Inc. ga...@sci34hub.sci.com site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Quit while you're ahead. All the best gamblers do." Baltasar Gracian
Warren Edward Kenyon
>In article <2f9uv3$f...@transfer.stratus.com> d...@phlan.sw.stratus.com writes:
>>In article <CIFw3...@whq2-top.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Greg Smith <greg.n...@DaytonOH.NCR.COM> writes:
>>[
>>I'm not astomomy/physics expert but I had a little shareware program called
>>Orbit. It allowed me to create solar system simulations. When I placed two
>>bodies in the exact same orbit with one body moving slightly faster, the
>>faster body eventually caught> up with the slow body and caused it to
>>decellerate (and its orbit to decay), while the faster body accellerated
>>and broke orbit. Providing of course that the bodies didn't collide.
>>]
>>Pardon me, but if they were in the "exact same orbit", how did they have
>>different speeds?
>Different masses.
this is the second poster who has claimed that mass determines orbital
velocity. This is sci.astro?
____ ____ __
/____/| /\ /____/| /__/ ken...@pogo.den.mmc.com || MADSTOP '81
\ | | |\ \ \ | | | / ken...@fr2.den.mmc.com || Draime Beach
\ | | | \ \ \ | | |/\ Standard Disclaimer || Rusty Nail
\ | | | \ \ \ | | |\ \ "I'm not god. I've just || Penny Arcade
\|/ |___\/ \|/ |_\/ been misquoted." D. Lister || Dr. Dirt Lives
chicken_little
1. Write a letter to Jean-Luc and explain the situation.
Address it c/o Starfleet Command, San Francisco.
Instruct that it is not to be delivered until
July 20, 2369 [kind of like Back to the Future III].
The date is very important because that will be the
400th anniversary of Neil & Buzz's moon diddy, the
cosmos will be in just the right phase, and ST:VII will
be just about to happen, so the Enterprise is available.
By then, the world will know if you were indeed right.
If so, he can get his buddy Q to move it for you, and
even do it retroactively back to 2004 if this really was
necessary. It could even provide a really cool plot for
"Star Trek VII: The Born Again Earth".
2. Have either of these two events happen:
1. Iowa State win the Rose Bowl, or
2. The Seattle Mariners win the world series.
The Universe will go into such utter chaos that Venus
will be jilted into exactly the orbit required.
3. Send $2,000,000 to Oral Roberts and he'll get a
lightyear-tall Jesus to move it for you.
4. Send Howard Stern to Venus. The additional volume
of hot air will cause Venus to rise into a higher
orbit.
5. Send Hillary "Rodham" Clinton to Venus. It won't
help move Venus, but it sure will make Earth a
better place.
--
Paul Gilmartin
: >Different masses.
: this is the second poster who has claimed that mass determines orbital
: velocity. This is sci.astro?
Mass influences orbital velocity insofar as the mass of the secondary
body is a significant fraction of the mass of the primary.
Is the mass of Venus a significant fraction of the mass of the sun?
Well, it depends on how precisely you want to measure. When it comes
to maintaining the state of a metastable configuration, I'd guess, "yes."
I think this _is_ sci.astro,
gil
Warren Edward Kenyon
>: >Different masses.
Yes, I realize that the planet will orbit the barycenter of the
planet/sun system, but the way I was reading those replies, it looked
like people were saying that since mr x v is a constant, then the planet
with the larger m must have a smaller v (this is a common misconception,
I assure you, after witnessing it first hand in my astronomy class in
college. This is also supported by the media when they say things like
"the shuttle rendezvoused with the 20 ton Hubble telescope while
traveling at 19000 miles per hour" and such things like that.)
MAC
No, sorry gil, this _is_ alt.usenet.kooks.
Are you nominating yourself as a usenet.kook?
MAC
Erik Max Francis
> >Pardon me, but if they were in the "exact same orbit", how did they have
> >different speeds?
>
> Different masses.
Er, the speed of a body in orbit is independent of its mass.
VAANDERING ERIC W
>TOP 5 WAYS TO MOVE VENUS TO EARTH-LIKE ORBIT:
>
>1. Write a letter to Jean-Luc and explain the situation.
> Address it c/o Starfleet Command, San Francisco.
> Instruct that it is not to be delivered until
> July 20, 2369 [kind of like Back to the Future III].
> The date is very important because that will be the
> 400th anniversary of Neil & Buzz's moon diddy, the
> cosmos will be in just the right phase, and ST:VII will
> be just about to happen, so the Enterprise is available.
>
> By then, the world will know if you were indeed right.
> If so, he can get his buddy Q to move it for you, and
> even do it retroactively back to 2004 if this really was
> necessary. It could even provide a really cool plot for
> "Star Trek VII: The Born Again Earth".
>
>2. Have either of these two events happen:
> 1. Iowa State win the Rose Bowl, or
Try the Orange Bowl, maybe. IA state is Big 8, the Rose Bowl is Big
10/11 vs. PAC 10.
> 2. The Seattle Mariners win the world series.
> The Universe will go into such utter chaos that Venus
> will be jilted into exactly the orbit required.
>
>3. Send $2,000,000 to Oral Roberts and he'll get a
> lightyear-tall Jesus to move it for you.
>
>4. Send Howard Stern to Venus. The additional volume
> of hot air will cause Venus to rise into a higher
> orbit.
>
>5. Send Hillary "Rodham" Clinton to Venus. It won't
> help move Venus, but it sure will make Earth a
> better place.
>
>--
--
Eric Vaandering Physics Department University of Colorado
Boulder CO 80302 vaan...@rintintin.colorado.edu
______________________________________________________________________________
Dawn: The time when men of reason go to bed.
Wayne A. Christopher
Christopher Vincent Chan <cvin...@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> No, I've read that Nemesis was supposed to be a star orbiting the Sun that
> causes comets to hit the earth every 26 million years.
> I have a book by a Dr. Richard Muller describing this theory.
> However, I don't know enough about astronomy to not believe it
> or believe it.
That book is pretty good -- as much about the sociology of science as
about the research itself. I don't think anybody has found direct
evidence that this star exists yet, but I don't think there is any
real counter-evidence either. It's a pretty clever idea, though. And
Muller is a great teacher, if you ever have the chance to take a class
from him.
Wayne
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
: >>Nah, we place it in orbit 180 degrees away.
: Tom Hopkins <hop...@nemesis.EBay.Sun.COM> replied:
: >But we can't do that! There is already a planet 180 degrees out of
: >Earth's orbit. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but I
: >do recall that they were believed to walk with their feet pointed
: >backwards.
Cyberspace Buddha (c...@bga.com) added:
: hmmm... I don't recall the characters on Gor walking strangely.
: The Preist-Kings certainly walk differently, but they're not
: indigenous to Gor...
There was another science-fictional planet directly opposite the
earth: Vulcan, whose name was later re-used in a famous TV science
fiction series.
-- Ken Jenks, NASA
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator
Erik Max Francis
> That book is pretty good -- as much about the sociology of science as
> about the research itself. I don't think anybody has found direct
> evidence that this star exists yet, but I don't think there is any
> real counter-evidence either. It's a pretty clever idea, though. And
> Muller is a great teacher, if you ever have the chance to take a class
> from him.
One thing I've never understood about Nemesis theory is that the
periodic disturber of the Oort cloud is specifically identified (at least
in the accounts that I've read of it) as a red dwarf star. Why not a
brown dwarf, or even a large gas giant? It seems that it would be more
likely to be able to see a red dwarf star that was that close -- why
wouldn't the theory be less specific about that?
Or maybe I've just read crappy accounts . . .
Erik Max Francis
> There was another science-fictional planet directly opposite the
> earth: Vulcan, whose name was later re-used in a famous TV science
> fiction series.
Hmm. The accounts of suggestions that a planet named "Vulcan" exists --
other than Star Trek -- tended to imply that it was a planet _inside_ the
orbit of Mercury.
Or am I mixing two things up, here?
L.H....@lut.ac.uk
Like the fridges, this is another example of observation affecting
causality, raising questions about whether what happens and what we perceive
to happen are truly related.
Or: If I never have the chance to take a class from Muller, is he still
a great teacher?
L.
Greg Smith
>In article <CIFw3...@whq2-top.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Greg Smith
<greg.n...@DaytonOH.NCR.COM> writes:
>[
>I'm not astomomy/physics expert but I had a little shareware program called
>Orbit. It allowed me to create solar system simulations. When I placed two
>bodies in the exact same orbit with one body moving slightly faster, the
>faster body eventually caught> up with the slow body and caused it to
>decellerate (and its orbit to decay), while the faster body accellerated
>and broke orbit. Providing of course that the bodies didn't collide.
>]
>
>Pardon me, but if they were in the "exact same orbit", how did they have
>different speeds?
>
Like I said, I'm not an astonomy/physics dude. Maybe the orbits weren't the
same, just really close so that the bodies' gravitational fields could influence
each other.
What was the original point?
Robert Dinse
I've got to say I'm really bothered by the posts I see from so many
people who call themselves scientists. They all think they know everything
already and so are completely closed off to discovering anything more exciting
than confirmation of existing theories.
There is still much to be discovered.
Dave Toland
[
]
Yes there *is* much to be discovered, but if you deviate from established
theory, you must provide a plausible explanation as to why the deviation
is necessary, and means whereby you can prove that the new theory is a
better model than that provided by existing theory. A new theory has to
be testable. If the tests require conditions that cannot yet be established,
then the theory remains merely a curiosity until testing *is* possible.
Meanwhile, it must also pass tests that current theories pass.
Now reorbiting Venus doesn't involve much in the way of new theory, or
at least no real new theory has been presented that will make this possible.
Only assertions and proposals into which many holes have been poked.
Granted, some of the holes may be illusory, even scientists make mistakes.
But as the number of holes increase and are not adequately answered, the
credibility of the theory shrinks rapidly. This proposal has been floating
around for months, and should IMO have been laid to rest long ago.
Your argument is the same one used historically to support such nonsense
as astrology and palmistry and UFO worship. The last is a perfect example,
because there's certainly no way to prove we've *never* been visited by
extraterrestrials, but the vast numbers of "sightings" and "abductions"
reported is completely preposterous.
There's a difference between closing one's mind and filtering noise.
David L Burkhead
Agreed in total. One should have an open mind, but not so open
that one's brains fall out. And anyone who thinks thta scientists
_aren't_ open to new ideas should spend some time reading the
technical journals. My own specialty is physics (as a student so far)
and I am constantly amazed at what comes out in the various journals.
The difference is that these things are discussed with an eye toward
_evidence_ and well-established theory rather than wide open
speculation.
zweblo u.f.c.
: I've got to say I'm really bothered by the posts I see from so many
: people who call themselves scientists. They all think they know everything
: already and so are completely closed off to discovering anything more exciting
: than confirmation of existing theories.
all i can say to this is that you obviously haven't been reading his posts.
nothing to do with the plausibility of his theories. he just has no basis in
reality for his claims except "because i say so".
Alexander Abian
>The difference is that these things are discussed with an eye toward
>_evidence_ and well-established theory rather than wide open
>speculation.
Abian answers:
Copernicus had no evidence whatsoever for the heliocentric system other
than an eye toward intellectual speculation.
Please do not mention about "Copernicus was an exception and that NOT
EVERY INTELLECTUAL SPECULATION TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE !! Please, I
know all this counterexamples. I know that lots of scientists were
considered crackpots and that not every crackpot became a scientist.
However, open-minded people, people who do not throw a wet blanket
on new ideas, people whose first reaction to a novelty is not: " cannot
work", "it is a joke", "it is garbage" those people welcome
TIME HAS INERTIA, EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS. REORBITING VENUS.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
David L Burkhead
Actually, Copernicus wasn't an exception. What he was doing was
the _other_ half of the equation: developing a simpler system that
explains observed phenomena at least as well as the current theory.
The Ptolemaic system used a complex system of epicycles, of circles
within circles, to explain the observed motion of the planets. By
going to a heliocentric system (which was not original with
Copernicus, BTW, but dated back to the ancient Greeks), Copernicus was
trying to eliminate the necessity for such a complex construction.
Thus, there are two ways in which one theory might supercede
another: it explains _observed_, _verifiable_ phenomena in a way more
simply than the earlier theory and without losing any detail. The
other is to explain observed and verifiable phenomena that cannot be
explained at all by the earlier theory.
David L. Burkhead
Paul Schlyter
David L Burkhead <r3d...@dax.cc.uakron.edu> wrote:
> Actually, Copernicus wasn't an exception. What he was doing was
> the _other_ half of the equation: developing a simpler system that
> explains observed phenomena at least as well as the current theory.
> The Ptolemaic system used a complex system of epicycles, of circles
> within circles, to explain the observed motion of the planets. By
> going to a heliocentric system (which was not original with
> Copernicus, BTW, but dated back to the ancient Greeks), Copernicus was
> trying to eliminate the necessity for such a complex construction.
Sun instead of the Earth, but he kept the Ptolemaic idea that a planetary
orbits must be combinations of circular motions, i.e. epicycles. As a
result, the Copernican system contained just as many epicycles as the
Ptolemaic system did, and was therefore really no simplification. Not until
Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptic ones could the epicycles
be abandoned and the theory be truly simplified (ignoring the fact that the
planet's orbits are not pure ellipses either, which is most noticeable in
the case of the Moon, a fact which gave Isaac Newton "a headache" - but
that's another story).
> The other is to explain observed and verifiable phenomena that cannot
> be explained at all by the earlier theory.
explained why Mercury and Venus always appears in the vicinity of the Sun
in the sky, why the Sun's motion is never retrogade, and also why the
retrogade motions of the planets always happen when the planet is close
to opposition to the Sun (or, in the case of Mercury and Venus which never
are at opposition, at inferior conjunction). In the Ptolemaic system, the
time of the planet's retrogade motion was a parameter that could be given
an arbitrary value - in the Copernican system the retrogade motion cannot
happen at any other time than it does.
It is a common misconception of the Copernican system that it was a
considerable simplification over the Ptolemaic system. It wasn't - at least
not until Kepler replaced Copernocus' epicycles with elliptical motion. But
that system should more properly be named the "Keplerian" system....
--
---
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Nybrogatan 75 A, 6 tr, S-114 40 Stockholm, Sweden
InterNet: pau...@saaf.se
David L Burkhead
>
> > The other is to explain observed and verifiable phenomena that cannot
> > be explained at all by the earlier theory.
>
>And it's here that the Copernican theory succeeded over the Ptolemaic: it
>explained why Mercury and Venus always appears in the vicinity of the Sun
>in the sky, why the Sun's motion is never retrogade, and also why the
>retrogade motions of the planets always happen when the planet is close
>to opposition to the Sun (or, in the case of Mercury and Venus which never
>are at opposition, at inferior conjunction). In the Ptolemaic system, the
>time of the planet's retrogade motion was a parameter that could be given
>an arbitrary value - in the Copernican system the retrogade motion cannot
>happen at any other time than it does.
>
Actually, the system of epicycles _did_ "explain" the motions of Venus and Mercury (although they did not explain the phases of venus
that became known to Galileo later).
>It is a common misconception of the Copernican system that it was a
>considerable simplification over the Ptolemaic system. It wasn't - at least
>not until Kepler replaced Copernocus' epicycles with elliptical motion. But
>that system should more properly be named the "Keplerian" system....
>
>--
>---
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Nybrogatan 75 A, 6 tr, S-114 40 Stockholm, Sweden
>InterNet: pau...@saaf.se
Absolutely correct. In fact it was the case of the _increased_
complexity that caused Copernicus to become discouraged with his own
"system," at least according to one of my sources on the matter and
this may have been why he did not want his work published until after
his death.
David L. Burkhead
Paul Schlyter
> >explained why Mercury and Venus always appears in the vicinity of the Sun
> >in the sky, why the Sun's motion is never retrogade, and also why the
> >retrogade motions of the planets always happen when the planet is close
> >to opposition to the Sun (or, in the case of Mercury and Venus which never
> >are at opposition, at inferior conjunction). In the Ptolemaic system, the
> >time of the planet's retrogade motion was a parameter that could be given
> >an arbitrary value - in the Copernican system the retrogade motion cannot
> >happen at any other time than it does.
> >
> Actually, the system of epicycles
I assume you mean the Ptolemaic, not the Copernican, system of epicycles....
> _did_ "explain" the motions of Venus and Mercury (although they did
> not explain the phases of Venus that became known to Galileo later).
Well, the Ptolemaic system didn't explain this in a natural way -- in the
Ptolemaic system, Mercury and Venus could just as well have been able to
be in opposition to the Sun sometimes. In the Copernican system, this was
not possible.