Earth has only 100m years left

Capt'n Midnight

http://davidbrin.blogspot.ie/2014/11/lets-lift-earth.html

Global warming to the point of thermal runaway.
One solution is to use a space elevator on the far side of the moon to drag it away. And earth will be pulled too.

Can't help thinking it needs more maths but at least it shows the scale and timescale of the problem.

Wanderer78

im starting to think this time scale is about right. this deeply concerns me. we have to some how turn this around urgently.

euser1984

That's why the "elite" are planning on getting tons of energy resources from one of the moons around Saturn. The thing is - you could put reflectors on the moon. The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than us....the project would provide all our energy resources and the solar panels put on the moon would only need to be a fraction of the size that is required on earth.

How much would it cost? I think it's about 200 trillion - roughly about the same size as the whole energy industries are worth....so, they will make loads more money by collecting it and sending it back to sell (and probably make even more money on energy from people on earth than they did before)....from the moon Titan I believe. Then we will be strangled by the financial ties and the energy ones too....

Oh yeah, and the world goes through natural heating up and down....the moon is straying further away from us now measured to be something like 250,000 miles....that's having an effect on climate because it's slowing the spin of the earth.

Harry Palmr

Why would one bother? Humans will be gone long before the planet is turned to desert.

enfant terrible

If humans make it through the next ice age, would a super volcano eruption be the most likely thing to wipe out humanity?

I believe Yellowstone erupts around every 600,000 years and it last erupted 640,000 years ago.

euser1984

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Why would one bother? Humans will be gone long before the planet is turned to desert.

Gone where? What if we found another planet we could set up shop on and destroy over time.

Harry Palmr

Gone to hell! Not another planet.

Captain Chaos

euser1984 wrote: »

Gone where? What if we found another planet we could set up shop on and destroy over time.

We can't even get to Mars in the next 50 years. I don't think we will ever last long enough to develop the technology to get anywhere meaningful and be able to actually live there independent of Earth.

euser1984

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We can't even get to Mars in the next 50 years. I don't think we will ever last long enough to develop the technology to get anywhere meaningful and be able to actually live there independent of Earth.

How much has changed in technology in the last 50 years for the human race? And what about the idea of string theory suggesting about 11 dimensions....in our three dimension world?......look at it from high enough our world looks like a 2D world but when you go in you see that there is a third; a third visible that is. Einstein brought the the concept of a fourth dimension: space time which is proven as existing...we just can't see it but we feel the effects every day....so what other dimensions is there? If everything is made up a strings do they vibrate and cause parallel worlds?

If we find answers to these questions maybe we will come to realize Mars is already upon us. We just can't see it....maybe we are everywhere at the same time. What frequencies do the strings vibrate at and where do these frequencies come from?

Capt'n Midnight

euser1984 wrote: »

How much has changed in technology in the last 50 years for the human race? And what about the idea of string theory suggesting about 11 dimensions....in our three dimension world?......look at it from high enough our world looks like a 2D world but when you go in you see that there is a third; a third visible that is. Einstein brought the the concept of a fourth dimension: space time which is proven as existing...we just can't see it but we feel the effects every day....so what other dimensions is there? If everything is made up a strings do they vibrate and cause parallel worlds?

strings are very small. tiny. smaller than you could imagine. and then some. no really. meanwhile in the real world you need LOTS of energy to support more dimensions something we are unlikely ever to do, even if we gain the ability to harness the power of galaxies.



Like a lot of quantum mechanics string theory only exists because the maths works.
Unlike the quantum leaps between 1905 and 1927 which have predicted stuff that's been observed (with a side helping of lasers, electronics, hard drives) string theory AFAIK hasn't predicted anything that's been observed. And until it does it's just a make work project for physicists.

euser1984

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

strings are very small. tiny. smaller than you could imagine. and then some. no really. meanwhile in the real world you need LOTS of energy to support more dimensions something we are unlikely ever to do, even if we gain the ability to harness the power of galaxies.



Like a lot of quantum mechanics string theory only exists because the maths works.
Unlike the quantum leaps between 1905 and 1927 which have predicted stuff that's been observed (with a side helping of lasers, electronics, hard drives) string theory AFAIK hasn't predicted anything that's been observed. And until it does it's just a make work project for physicists.

String theory does offer an answer to why gravity is so weak, thus the possibility of supporting extra dimensions; throw dark matter into the mix and you can add as many dimensions as you want perhaps. It doesn't matter how small the strings are, it's the power they could have....how much energy can we get by splitting an atom....

Anyways it may be possible to prove string theory soon. The maths are very similar to the maths used to describe a certain type of black hole afaik. String theory math will be used to make predictions that can be observed....not sure of any other details.

endacl

euser1984 wrote: »

That's why the "elite" are planning on getting tons of energy resources from one of the moons around Saturn. The thing is - you could put reflectors on the moon. The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than us....the project would provide all our energy resources and the solar panels put on the moon would only need to be a fraction of the size that is required on earth.

How much would it cost? I think it's about 200 trillion - roughly about the same size as the whole energy industries are worth....so, they will make loads more money by collecting it and sending it back to sell (and probably make even more money on energy from people on earth than they did before)....from the moon Titan I believe. Then we will be strangled by the financial ties and the energy ones too....

Oh yeah, and the world goes through natural heating up and down....the moon is straying further away from us now measured to be something like 250,000 miles....that's having an effect on climate because it's slowing the spin of the earth.

You couldn't confine this stuff to one thread...

endacl

enfant terrible wrote: »

If humans make it through the next ice age,.

We're still in one. Actually, just coming out of the Quaternary Glaciation, which peaked c. 10000-15000 years ago. We seem to be surviving OK. A few of us made it through.

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

You couldn't confine this stuff to one thread...

Seriously man....your arguments are pathetic.

Try reading all the posts in a thread also before you jump to reply and discredit. Try and steer clear of posting stupid pictures in somebody elses thread also if you want some advice.

Also, note times and dates that posts in other threads have been written, and figure out how things may have changed as things progress between threads.
Finally, try quoting your last post in my thread with this picture. I give you permission seeing as it's my thread. :pac: Especially after your last post.

Also, get two monitors if you only have one atm.

Taylor365

euser1984 wrote: »

The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than us....

euser1984 wrote: »

Seriously man....your arguments are pathetic

...Right so :pac:

euser1984

Taylor365 wrote: »

...Right so :pac:

I suppose I have to answer this....FRC, the post (you are referring to) refers to another thread if you cared to check....This thread was hijacked by said person with a big picture (god help you if you have a low resolution monitor) and now you have ignited the thread with this completely off the point nonsense.

On the moon, the solar panels would need to be a fraction of the size we have on earth....go figure that out...and you will see that the point of the post is apt., for those that can read between the lines, and understand what I'm trying to say. Even experts make mistakes and simple ones too. I don't declare myself to be any sort of expert, thus; it would be fair for you to assume that I don't know all the tiny bits of information about space, which aren't really relevant unless exploring such specifically; in this case the moon.

How far the moon is away from earth is useful for perhaps a trivia game show, unless specifically studying the moon; which I don't have any interest at this moment in time....

Taylor365

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im starting to think this time scale is about right. this deeply concerns me. we have to some how turn this around urgently.

Don't think there is much to worry about really. An asteroid will probably hit us before then or someone will invade an imaginary border of land causing Nuclear war.

100m years in perspective:

Over 1.1 million lifetimes roughly.
All Human recorded history dates back only about 8000-10000 years.

euser1984

There's tonnes of stuff that could happen, loads of possibilities. It's like telling a person how long they are going to live for.....

The Hill Billy

euser1984 wrote: »

The moon is 400 times closer to the sun than us....

It that were the case, the Moon would be much closer to the Sun than Mercury. The Sun is 400 times farther away from us than the Moon is. That is a big, big difference.

Lest you get frustrated with some of the responses you are seeing to your posts - please bear in mind that this is a 'science' forum which usually deals with hard facts & theories that can be empirically supported.

Just a friendly suggestion (& not wanting to backseat mod) - theories with little or no scientific backup would be better suited to another forum maybe.

Maximus Alexander

The Hill Billy wrote: »

It that were the case, the Moon would be much closer to the Sun than Mercury.

I don't even know how to parse "400 times closer" which appears to be a meaningless phrase (what is the unit of closeness?).

However, if we say that it means the distance between the Sun and Moon is 1/400 of that between the Sun and Earth, then the Moon would not just be closer to the Sun than Mercury, it would be 152 times closer! :pac:

euser1984

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't even know how to parse "400 times closer" which appears to be a meaningless phrase (what is the unit of closeness?).

However, if we say that it means the distance between the Sun and Moon is 1/400 of that between the Sun and Earth, then the Moon would not just be closer to the Sun than Mercury, it would be 152 times closer! :pac:

Obviously it's a mistake, and which has already been addressed......measure it by light years I suppose considering it's space. Never the less as I stated the moon gets a lot more sun....

A small (in comparison to earth) amount of solar panels (or smaller size) would be enough to provide power for the whole world, and the technology has been there for the last 30 years to do it.

The question is why don't we do it? Because nobody will pay for it. They will continue searching until they find something that they can make money from....I don't know about other countries space programs but if America wants to remain a superpower, then they need more energy (which is like gold - just look at the oil rich countries). It's crucial.....there ain't gonna be any solar panels on the moon with the current financial system. I can guarantee you finding energy resources is the first priority for NASA....if it isn't then there will be no future space exploration of any kind at all. They need to find it fast too.

Call what I said a "conspiracy" if you want, but the reality is that those that have all the money, have it; because the system is setup so the money always goes back to them. Who are these people and what do they do with the wealth? They certainly don't give it out to help humanity. They only give it out so they can get it back plus interest. These same people pay for most of NASA's work because it's funded by them via debt. These people also have the most power, influence etc. More power than the politicians because the politicians spend their money. The system has been raped to the point of no return and it's because of Nixons implementation of no reserve banking. (or limited - can't remember exactly). Reserve banking means you have to have gold to back up any money you print. Without it you can just print as much money as you want. If loans cannot be paid back and the system collapses and there is no gold to give the bankers what happens? All the money becomes useless including what's in Americans bank account and pocket.

This can be seen clearly by the way drug companies are allowed to market their products like happy pills on tv. This is not a case of something that needs to be dealth with in the future when given a chance. The ability to do this was implemented only in the last few years....that is not in the public's interest because these drugs are not happy pills, and give people a false idea of what they are about.....

It's crucial for America to stay in power because they owe so much money to the banks......if they find resources on Titan do they own it? Yep they will. I'm not sure what will happen to the euro if the dollar collapses but it will certainly affect your pocket in some way or another. It depends on how much American banks are involved in lending money over here.

Germany could be our savior.....212 billion profit has been made by them during the recession....they are also setting it up so they will get more money from your pocket over the long term by implementing these water charges. I'm anti europe but it's all so complicated now it's difficult to figure it out and that's the way they want it to be.

We had a referendum and we had to do it again because we voted No. We have no choice regarding water charges....they have us exactly as they wanted and it was driven by our own greed during the boom.

AMKC

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We can't even get to Mars in the next 50 years. I don't think we will ever last long enough to develop the technology to get anywhere meaningful and be able to actually live there independent of Earth.

I think we will get to Mars in the next 25 years sometime. The technology is there already its just very expensive at the moment and not reliable enough yet.
We should have been there already do if the space race had never stopped we would have been there by now unfortuneatly after America got to the moon first it all stopped then and instead of two superpowers competing to be the fist to get further in space they just stopped and just done there own thing.
As for eventually getting to other planets outside of our Galaxy I think we will get there it just might take 500 hundred or maybe even a thosand years before it happens.

euser1984

Money will be pumped into it big time if resources are found in Titan I reckon....

I'm not sure if there is any point going to Mars myself? Just so someone can walk on it?

Maximus Alexander

euser1984 wrote: »

Money will be pumped into it big time if resources are found in Titan I reckon....

I'm not sure if there is any point going to Mars myself? Just so someone can walk on it?

Well it's closer to Jupiter, so we could use it to build comets and turn them into more planets or something.

euser1984

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Well it's closer to Jupiter, so we could use it to build comets and turn them into more planets or something.

haha. When I said that I meant: Comet into Jupiter = Jupiter spit out gas and dust = planet....

Don't go quoting me now like an ass because that it what I meant....next post you put up I'm gonna report it....find something better to do on a Friday night than bullying other people.

And if a comet burst into bits it could form a planet :pac:

greedygoblin

euser1984 wrote: »

And if a comet burst into bits it could form a planet :pac:

Possibly (if it was a planet-sized comet to begin with).:)

endacl

euser1984 wrote: »

Obviously it's a mistake, and which has already been addressed......measure it by light years I suppose considering it's space.

But that's even more wrong! In the other direction. By many many orders of magnitude!

You appear to have carried out a gravity assist manoeuvre, where the slingshot effect has ejected you away from any commonly understood unit of measurement.

I won't even bother with the CT cr4p, if it's all the same...

endacl

greedygoblin wrote: »

Possibly (if it was a planet-sized comet to begin with).:)

An impossibility. All comets are remnants. By definition. Anything the size of a planet can't be a comet. *

*Except for Forbidden Planet. **

** The shop. Not the movie.

greedygoblin

endacl wrote: »

An impossibility. All comets are remnants. By definition. Anything the size of a planet can't be a comet. *

Indeed (I may have been somewhat facetious).

endacl wrote: »

*Except for Forbidden Planet. **

** The shop. Not the movie.

Must give that a watch. 7.7/10 on IMDB (The movie, not the shop :pac:).

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

But that's even more wrong! In the other direction. By many many orders of magnitude!
You appear to have carried out a gravity assist manoeuvre, where the slingshot effect has ejected you away from any commonly understood unit of measurement.

Your a gentleman. Look, if you feel like continuing this on to for whatever personal reasons you can fire ahead...

I may have made myself look stupid but your doing the same thing now. You do the math if you want to add space time into the equation....but it could still be measured in light years of course....next time why not pick out something I wrote that has merit. It might make for a sensible conversation.

endacl wrote: »

I won't even bother with the CT cr4p, if it's all the same...

It's not actually a conspiracy theory....one of the reasons I'd imagine that they want to put a man on Mars is to ignite the interest for the American public. It would also be a statement to other countries. If I was talking about the Americans having aliens in hiding in so called "Area 51" then you would be getting into conspiracy type stuff. Maybe you are a banker, you are certainly giving off that impression. If not, look into how the financial system works and who set it up that way....

euser1984

endacl wrote: »

An impossibility. All comets are remnants. By definition. Anything the size of a planet can't be a comet. *

*Except for Forbidden Planet. **

** The shop. Not the movie.

Where have you got your definition of a comet from? If you want a technical answer then it is possible, no such thing as an impossibility when your talking about probability theory.

Capt'n Midnight

The moon is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun

on average the moon is the same distance from the sun as the earth and so gets the same amount of sunshine as the top of our atmosphere


the moon gets maybe 30% more light than the earths surface due to no athmosphere. BUT a solar panel on the moon would be exposed to solar wind and radiation and far more UV and greater temperature extremes and moon dust that's very sharp too. higher temps mean lower efficiency BTW

Maximus Alexander

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The moon is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun

on average the moon is the same distance from the sun as the earth and so gets the same amount of sunshine as the top of our atmosphere


the moon gets maybe 30% more light than the earths surface due to no athmosphere. BUT a solar panel on the moon would be exposed to solar wind and radiation and far more UV and greater temperature extremes and moon dust that's very sharp too. higher temps mean lower efficiency BTW

Not to mention, how are you getting the energy back to Earth, and what is the efficiency of that transfer?

Capt'n Midnight

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Not to mention, how are you getting the energy back to Earth, and what is the efficiency of that transfer?

best efficiency is maybe 50% with rectennas and that's in good weather from LEO

The anti-mobile phone lobby would go apoplectic if it was explained to them just how many mobile phone masts it would be equilivent to.

Next time you go to a fishing port count the radars, each one uses way more than a mast

also solar panels are about 30c/watt
getting to LEO for €5,000 a Kg is still something that hasn't happened
then you've to get to the Moon, handwaving a hall effect drive 'cos you'll have loads of solar power , but you still need reaction mass and engines and stuff so lot's of Kg's

then you've to land on the Moon, that task will require having 50% of your remaining mass as propellant,

then you have to deploy or build the panels and all the mass for all the systems or grunts to do that.

and add in redundancy , you can't just go on ebay and order more panels from China with free postage

euser1984

It would cost the current value of the entire energy industry as of now to implement.

Microwaves can go through clouds, hurricanes etc.

It's possible to send power via optical beams of light at the moment though not practical. The issue is finding the right way to do it.

Calibos

Because You know so little, you don't know how little you know. [Head Explodes]

Calibos

WRT the Subject of the thread. Asking what 'humans' are going to do about the event in 100million years makes as much sense as having asked a Stegasaurus 100 MYA what he was going to do about Climate Change in 2015. It would actually make more sense to ask a mouse what his intelligent descendant 100MLY hence is going to do.

Do people not grasp the fact we went from a shrew like creature to human in the previous 100million years?

euser1984

Calibos wrote: »

Because You know so little, you don't know how little you know. [Head Explodes]

Who are you referring to and to what specifically?

Calibos wrote: »

WRT the Subject of the thread. Asking what 'humans' are going to do about the event in 100million years makes as much sense as having asked a Stegasaurus 100 MYA what he was going to do about Climate Change in 2015. It would actually make more sense to ask a mouse what his intelligent descendant 100MLY hence is going to do.

Do people not grasp the fact we went from a shrew like creature to human in the previous 100million years?

This has already been said.

Ash.J.Williams

we should let it die...and allow earth rejuvinate

euser1984

I think so. People are attempting to somehow make me feel bad about myself and convince me I'm an idiot. I just see people with some sort of complex trying to satisfy some insecurities of some description. It's actually sad but it's not my life.

Maximus Alexander

Come on science forum, talk pseudoscience, get offended when told it's nonsense. Makes sense.

euser1984

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Come on science forum, talk pseudoscience, get offended when told it's nonsense. Makes sense.

Have you still not read the rest of the thread? What on earth is wrong with you?

ps200306

euser1984 wrote: »

I think so. People are attempting to somehow make me feel bad about myself and convince me I'm an idiot. I just see people with some sort of complex trying to satisfy some insecurities of some description. It's actually sad but it's not my life.

I don't think that's the case. It's just that some of your statements seem very naive. For example:

• "there is an 'elite' planning to tap the moon, or the moons of Saturn, for energy resources"; there's no credible evidence of that.
• "it would cost $200t to build out moon-based solar power"; it's nonsensical to suggest an estimate that has not been technically proven (by which I mean, developed, piloted, and demonstrated at scale -- most energy "magic bullets" fall at that last hurdle)
• "you only need a fraction of the solar panels on the moon that you would need on earth"; can you put some numbers on that please? The solar irradiance on the moon is the same as at the top of the earth's atmosphere. How much are you suggesting is subtracted by the earth's atmosphere, and at what usable wavelengths? How does it compare to transmission losses in a moon-based system?

There's a whole host of reasons why something might not get built, even if it's technically feasible. What is the up front spend before there is any return? What is the amortization period over which the cost is paid off? What is an acceptable payback time horizon for the investors? What is the political time horizon for the political backers? How long before it can compete with terrestrial power sources?

And that's even before we address a host of technical unknowns. For one tiny example, what is the level of radiation and micrometeoroid damage to moon-based solar panels (there is half a gram of micrometeoroid dust per square meter of moon surface per year on average, but probably higher in the plane of the ecliptic, i.e. near the equator)?