|Subj:||Impossible to nudge earth into different orbit!|
Snow Pak of Earth
Dick Fojut Graphics email@example.com
2622 E. 6th St./Tucson,AZ.85716 Tel-Fax 520-325-3802
NUDGE EARTH INTO A DIFFERENT ORBIT? IMPOSSIBLE!
I was astounded to hear respected scientists with NASA seriously believe they can "nudge" earth into a different orbit around the Sun! These experts can plot a trajectory for rockets to move through the solar system, yet they seem TOTALLY IGNORANT about WHY and HOW planets orbit at different distances around the Sun! These NASA experts, and unnamed "astronomers," apparently believe earth's orbit and distance from the Sun came about from some random accidental arrangement.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to "nudge" the earth into a different orbit and distance from the Sun...
WHY? Because, dependant on the planet's MAGNETIC CAPACITY (the volume of magnetic forces stored in its crust), the Sun's centrifugal and magnetic forces hold each satellite in a precise NEUTRAL zone orbit around the Sun.
A Neutral Zone? Each precise Neutral Zone of orbit is at that distance where our Sun's magnetic and centrifugal forces cancel each other. At that Neutral Zone distance, each satellite can be thrown out no further by the Sun's centrifugal, repellant force because it is countered by the Sun's magnetic pull. And the Sun's magnetic force cannot pull the satellite into the Sun, countered by the Sun's centrifugal, repellant force. At that precise distance, it is a CHECKMATE of antagonistic forces, forming a neutral zone of orbit around the Sun.
According to the great UNrecognized scientist, James Churchward, (the author of the MU books who died in 1936). each orbiting body in our solar system has A DIFFERENT MAGNETIC CAPACITY. Like earth, each planet's CRUST is its "storage house," its "battery." Volumes of each planet's magnetic forces, including electromagnetic, saturate its crust, held close by its "central" magnet, until called forth by nature to carry out their duties on the planet's surface and in the atmosphere.
The THICKNESS and DENSITY of each planet's outside crust (for its size) indicates its magnetic capacity. The thicker and denser the crust, the greater the volume of magnetic forces stored in the crust, the greater its magnetic capacity. The greater its magnetic capacity, THE CLOSER IT WILL ORBIT THE SUN..
The following are quotations from Churchward's chapter on the SUN from "Cosmic Forces of MU," book One, out of context, but sufficient to paint a picture and explain why it is impossible for the child thinkers at NASA to "nudge" the earth into a different orbit...
"For the sun to carry the earth around herself in an orbit, four separate and distinct forces are required.
Three of these must emanate from the sun, and One from the earth.
The four forces are:
A sun's propellent force to carry the earth along in her orbit.
A sun's repellent force to prevent the earth from being drawn into the sun.
A sun's magnetic force to prevent the repellent force from carrying the earth out into space.
An earthly magnetic force or forces that are affinitive to the sun's propellent and magnetic forces.
It may involve two earthly magnetic forces or only one, I cannot say.
I have heretofore shown that all these forces exist. Two of the sun's forces, the magnetic and repellent, must form a neutral zone. The repellent force at the sun's surface must be stronger than the magnetic force, and from the sun's surface must diminish in strength as it works out into space. The magnetic must be weaker at the sun's surface than the repellent and also diminish in strength as it moves out into space, but the rate at which its power diminishes must be much slower than that of the repellent; then, at a given point dependent on the magnetic capacity of the planet, a neutral zone will be formed, from which she cannot stray.
Each of the planets has a different magnetic capacity. Therefore, as their magnetism differs, so must their neutral zones differ in distance from the sun. Thus it is shown why Mercury is so close to the sun and Neptune so far away as to be out of sight.
Apparently, I cannot say it authoritatively, the magnetic capacity is governed by density. If our scientists are correct in their assertions about the densities of the planets, the planet nearest to the sun is the densest and the farthest one away the least dense of all."
(More specifics from Churchward)....
The neutral zones of the earth and planets are shown as circles parallel to the sun with a planet on each circle. The neutral zone of a satellite is governed by her magnetic capacity. Her magnetic capacity in turn is governed by the elements composing the body, the thickness of the crust, and the general density. This is fully verified by the bodies composing the solar system.
The higher or greater the magnetic capacity of a planet
is, the nearer will be her neutral zone to the sun, and the body with the
lowest magnetic capacity will have its neutral zone the farthest away from
A body, when given an impetus by a temporary force, flies forward, commencing in a straight line, and continues on in this straight line until some magnetic force attracts it, and eventually stops it having overcome a temporary force. Then the magnetic force claims the body.
If, however, the propellent force is not of a temporary character, and of a circular movement, with sufficiently strong centrifugal and magnetic forces governing it, so as to form a neutral zone, then the flight must be everlasting.
The earth and planets can be carried out by the sun's centrifugal force just so far and no further. They are compelled each and all to remain in their neutral zones. For at the distance from the sun at which they are placed, the sun's magnetic force is holding them against the sun's centrifugal force. Neither the earth or any of the planets can be drawn into the sun, for, within their neutral zones, the sun's repellent force is stronger than the magnetic, and prevents their nearer approach to the sun.
The earth and each of the planets have their own separate degrees of magnetic capacity, and all being different, no two have the same neutral zone. Therefore they cannot collide with each other.
To have two planets occupying the same neutral zone, it would be necessary to have the two bodies of identically the same size, composed of identically the same element, and in the same exact proportion one to the other, and with identically the same thickness of crust. Otherwise, their magnetic capacity would not be the same; not being the same, it is impossible for them to have the same neutral zone."
And this last part from Churchward (But not having read all his books, some will probably disagree with a few of his following statements, especially about the "nature" of the Sun)...
All forces connected with the earth's circuit around the sun are even and everlasting.
The earth cannot stop her flight around the sun as long as the sun continues to be a living body.
The earth cannot be drawn into
The earth cannot be hurled off into space.
The earth cannot collide with any other body.
Each body in the solar system has its neutral zone.
Each body in the universe has its neutral zone.
No two neutral zones cross each other.
No body can be drawn out of its neutral zone.
The sun has a hard crust and a soft center.
The sun is not committing slow suicide by burning up. The sun is a cool body.*
The sun supplies no heat beyond
A pole may be magnetized and de-magnetized many times during a circuit around the governing body.
I have very inadequately shown what the great Cosmic Forces are and their manner of working, but trust that at least some who read this work will find it sufficiently explicit to understand what I wish to convey." -- James Churchward
* (The great astronomer Herschel also did not agree with the orthodox. He wrote: "The sun may be a cool body.")
I think the preceding reveal someone with MORE UNDERSTANDING about the nature and functioning of our solar system, than the kindergarten experts currently inhabiting the theoretical funny farm at NASA, who wish to "nudge" earth into a different orbit. - Dick Fojut
Dick Fojut Graphics firstname.lastname@example.org
2622 E. 6th St./Tucson,AZ.85716 Tel-Fax 520-325-3802
Astronomers hatch plan to move Earth's orbit from warming sun
February 5, 2001
By Dennis Newman
CNN Headline News writer
(CNN) -- A group of astronomers has come up with a plan they claim will save life on Earth from an early demise. All it takes, they say, is moving the planet into a different orbit.
Their deadline is about 3.5 billion years in the future. At that time, the scientists say, the sun will be 40 percent brighter than it is today and the Earth will be too hot to sustain life. Even looking just a billion years down the road, the increased brightness of the sun would cause a "moist greenhouse" effect which will have a catastrophic impact on the planet.
But what if the Earth could be moved farther away from the sun before it gets too hot for human life?
Researchers Don Korycansky of the University of California-Santa Cruz, Gregory Laughlin of NASA, and Fred Adams of the University of Michigan say the idea of changing the Earth's orbit is almost, "alarmingly feasible."
The scientists' theory is outlined in a paper entitled "Astronomical engineering: A strategy for modifying planetary orbit." The paper has been accepted for publication in the journal "Astrophysics and Space Science."
The researchers' theory is a twist on the "gravity-assist" technique used to send spacecraft to the outer planets. The team says that by shooting a large object (such as an asteroid about 62 miles across) past the Earth, the planet could be gradually pulled away from the Sun. It would take thousands of encounters to make a difference. One million encounters would move the Earth out 41 million miles, or about 50 percent farther from the sun than it is today.
But the researchers say that if the technique is repeated an average of every 6,000 years, the orbit could be increased to keep pace with the Sun's increasing brightness. The result, they say, would be to keep the Earth habitable for up to an extra 5 billion years.
The scientists say their plan is not without some drawbacks. In order for this method to work, the asteroid would have to pass by Earth within about 10,000 miles. If the asteroid comes too close, it might break up or conceivably even slam into Earth.
Another possible side effect of shooting such a large object past Earth, the scientists say, would be to increase the planet's rotation. The encounters would have to be planned so that while some would cause the Earth to spin faster, others would slow it down back to normal rotation speed. It's also possible that the moon would be thrown from its orbit around the Earth during these fly-bys.
Sun too close? We'll just change Earth's orbit
By Dan Vergan, USA TODAY
Anyone worried about the sun frying Earth sometime in the next billion years can rest easy: Astronomers have devised a way to move our planet to a safer orbit.
In a paper accepted by the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, planetary scientist Don Korycansky of the University of California-Santa Cruz and colleagues detail a plan to remove Earth from its current orbit to a cooler one using "gravitational slingshot" tugs provided by massive asteroids or comets redirected to pass nearby.
"Large-scale planetary engineering is possible with technical procedures we know about now," Korycansky says.
The researchers say mankind will need a scheme like this to save Earth's atmosphere from the heat of the sun, predicted to grow 11% hotter over the next 1.1 billion years.
The plan would entail sticking a fusion-powered rocket or solar sail on a 62-mile-wide asteroid, or comet, to nudge it out of orbit a simple "engineering problem," Korycansky says. While not plentiful, such sizable objects do dwell in the Kuiper Belt region of icy bodies orbiting in the region of Pluto.
The plan would have the asteroid give Earth a gravity tug as it passes by. Then the asteroid would slingshot around the sun and loop around Jupiter for another return trip past Earth. Each round trip would last 6,000 years.
Over millions of years, the gravity assists would pull the planet from 93 million miles away from the sun too close to a comfy 140 million-mile orbit, Korycansky estimates.
However, he and his colleagues note a few drawbacks:
We may lose the moon.
The gravity tugs might spin Earth faster, shortening a day to a few hours. Mars and Venus apparently need Earth to stay in their orbits. The scheme might pull Jupiter 10 million miles closer to the sun, disturbing the asteroid belt and sending more rocks hurtling onto our planet. A miscalculation might send the 62-mile-wide asteroid slamming into Earth, which "would sterilize the biosphere most effectively, at least to the level of bacteria," the astronomers warn.
"Their analysis shows that it works, but I don't think we'd want to do it this way," says astronomer Jack Lissauer of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.
A story about the analysis carried by BBC Online caught the attention of astronomers concerned with ways to deflect asteroids aimed at the Earth. A gravity slingshot may represent one way to handle such hazards, Lissauer suggests.
"If we don't destroy ourselves, we have a billion years to figure this one out," he adds. "Who knows what technology we will have in just 1,000 years?"
In the final analysis, he compares the planet-moving scheme to primitives figuring out a way to build the Golden Gate Bridge out of rope. "We could do it, but who'd want to?"
Earth Orbit Variations Linked To Global Climate Change
About 23 million years ago, a huge ice sheet spread over Antarctica, temporarily reversing a general trend of global warming and decreasing ice volume.
Now a team of researchers has discovered that this climatic blip at the boundary between the Oligocene and Miocene epochs corresponded with a rare combination of events in the pattern of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
In a paper published in today's issue of Science, the researchers show that the transient glaciation and other climatic variations during a period from about 20 to 25.5 million years ago correspond with variations in Earth's orbit known as Milankovitch cycles.
Although the concept of such relationships is not new, some of the results were surprising, said James Zachos, a professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and lead author of the paper.
"When we began examining the temporal relationship of the orbital oscillations relative to the oscillations in the climate record, we never suspected that the transient glaciation at 23 million years ago had anything to do with orbital anomalies," Zachos said.
The astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch first proposed that cyclical variations in certain elements of Earth-Sun geometry can cause major changes in Earth's climate. The main variables are eccentricity, obliquity, and precession.
Eccentricity refers to the changing shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun, which varies from nearly circular to elliptical over a cycle of about 100,000 years.
Obliquity refers to the angle at which Earth's axis is tilted with respect to the plane of its orbit, varying between 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees over a 41,000-year cycle.
And precession is the gradual change in the direction Earth's axis is pointing, which completes a cycle every 21,000 years.
"Because there are several components of orbital variability, each with lower frequency components of amplitude modulation, there is the potential for unusual interactions between them on long timescales of tens of millions of years," Zachos said. "What we found at 23 million years ago is a rare congruence of a low point in Earth's eccentricity and a period of minimal variation in obliquity."
The result of this rare congruence was a period of about 200,000 years when there was unusually low variability in the planet's climate, with reduced extremes of seasonal warmth and coldness. Earth's orbit was nearly circular, so its distance from the Sun stayed about the same throughout the year.
In addition, the tilt of Earth's axis, which gives rise to the seasons, varied less than usual. In other words, the tilt doesn't always vary between the same extremes in its 41,000-year cycles; the obliquity cycle itself varies in amplitude over a longer period of about 1.25 million years. Similarly, the eccentricity cycle peaks every 400,000 years.
The combination of a low-amplitude "node" in the obliquity cycle and a minimum in eccentricity would have caused only several degrees difference in summer temperatures at the poles, but it was probably enough to allow the Antarctic ice sheet to expand, Zachos said.
Zachos's collaborators on the paper were Nicholas Shackleton and Heiko Pälike of Cambridge University, Justin Revenaugh of UC Santa Cruz, and Benjamin Flower of the University of South Florida.
The researchers obtained detailed climate records for the late Oligocene and early Miocene by analyzing sediment cores drilled out of the ocean floor. Cutting through layers of sediments laid down over millions of years, such cores contain a chronological record of past climates written in the chemistry of fossilized shells left behind by tiny marine organisms. Oxygen isotopes in the shells, for example, reflect ocean water temperatures and the amount of ice trapped in glaciers.
In the 1970s, scientists using these techniques obtained the first good evidence in support of Milankovitch's theory, almost 50 years after he had proposed it.
According to Zachos, researchers are still trying to get a handle on the relationships between climate cycles and orbital variations. Since most of the research has focused on the past 5 million years, the new paper is valuable because it looks at a more distant window in time when conditions on the planet were different.
In the period they examined, the late Oligocene and early Miocene, Zachos and his collaborators found evidence of several climate cycles with frequencies corresponding to the Milankovitch cycles.
But the correspondence of the orbital anomaly with the transient glaciation event at the boundary between the two epochs is especially interesting, Zachos said. The climate system seems to have undergone a fundamental shift at this boundary, which also marks a major break in the paleontologic record.
"I'm not sure everyone will be convinced that the orbital anomaly alone is responsible," Zachos said. "But the congruence of those orbital cycles is a very rare event, and the fact that it exactly corresponds with this rare climatic event is compelling." - By Tim Stephens
[Contact: James Zachos, Tim Stephens]
[Contact: email@example.com - James Zachos or firstname.lastname@example.org - Tim Stephens
U.S. Navy Opinion of Earth Orbit
View Earth From Sattelite
SPIN AXIS - THE POLE SHIFT
HOW DO YOU PREPARE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
THE MAGNETIC POLES 'ARE' SHIFTING ON EARTH
POLAR MOTION - A PROPHECY AND THE SCIENCE
GORDA RIDGE OFF THE COAST
OVER 3,000 QUAKES
THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON?
DID WE REALLY GO TO THE MOON?
THE THREE PHASES OF THE SUN (SON)
THE TURTLE ISLAND - THE MYTHOLOGY - THE DREAM - THE REALITY
Mayan, Prophecy of the End of the Great Cycle
The number 26
The Mayan Connection
REVELATION OF THE SUN
SUN - WHY ARE
WE AFRAID OF IT?
IS THE FLIPPING OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE SUN
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEATTLE QUAKES?
SEATTLE EARTHQUAKE AND
FOR ANOTHER ONE COMING
THE RUSSIANS HAVE BECOME BELIEVERS IN THE EARTHCHANGES
SAY 100,000 KILLED IN EARTHQUAKE IN INDIA
IS THERE MORE TO THESE QUAKES THAN MEETS THE EYE?
IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN SCARED ...
1998 OX4 ... INCOMING
NEAR EARTH OBJECTS
COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SOON
ARE WE BEING
TOLD THAT THE FIRST TRUMPET OF
THE BOOK OF REVELATION HAS BLOWN?
OR IS ABOUT TO BLOW?
JUST LIKE OTHER PLANETS, EARTH CHANGES IT'S EQUATOR ALSO
THREE DAYS OF DARKNESS OCCURRED IN THE THE 5TH CENTURY -
WHY ARE WE STILL WORRYING ABOUT IT?
MORE ON THERA AND CRETE - KRAKATOA
THE PLAGUES OF EGYPT
WHAT TO DO DURING THE THREE DAYS OF DARKNESS
Dreams of the Great Earthchanges - Main Index