BBC Focus Magazine

[MikeG]

According to this article, Vesta was unable to form as a planet, because Jupiter exerted too strong a pull on the surrounding asteroids. So if for whatever reason we wanted to create a new planet (say we wanted to prepare for the day when the sun expands and engulfs the earth), we just need to divert asteroids on a collision course with Vesta. At some point it will achieve critical mass, and have a strong enough gravity to achieve this on its own?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/how-to/ ... =pm_latest

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well you could, but, by the time the Sun has expanded enough to engulf the current orbit of the Earth it is likely that the Earths orbit (along with all of the planets) will have increased sufficiently to avoid being fried so it might not be a problem anyway?

Also by that time I would expect that we will have mined the asteroids into non existence?

[MikeG]

Well you could, but, by the time the Sun has expanded enough to engulf the current orbit of the Earth it is likely that the Earths orbit (along with all of the planets) will have increased sufficiently to avoid being fried so it might not be a problem anyway?

I wasn't awar that that the earth is increasing its distance from the sun. I always assumed that its eliptical orbit was constant

[M Paul Lloyd]

All orbits degrade Mike and just as the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 38mm per year (this hase been measured by laser on a regular basis ever since the Apollo Astronauts placed a reflector on the Lunar surface) so the Earth can be shown to be moving away from the Sun at a rate of around 150mm per year (Krasinsky and Brumberg 2004) so given current estimates that the Sun has another 4 billion years left before it starts to expand that gives us just 600,000 kilometres but allowing for the rate of orbital degradation increasing dramatically as the Sun loses more mass that could easily increase one hundred fold in the process putting us beyond the current orbit of Mars.

[Shadowwolf]

As Mr M mentions orbits are not immutable but also as the sun alters so that will affect Terra and it is thought the planet should escape from being engulfed. Most of the movement would occur as the sun radically changes but it will also have gotten hotter and even if Terra did move out of range of the solar expansion, it will still be uninhabitable due to the heat.

Not sure about Vesta, probably easier to Terra-form Mars if it would be safe or maybe one of the Jovian moons, attempting to build a planet may be too slow a process.

[MikeG]

Apparently, the combined asteroids would make a planetary body body smaller than the surface area of the moon. So it wouldn't really offer much in the form of a new home.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Yes, sorry, I meant to mention that.

But if you used that material to construct hollow spheres about 2 kilometres in diameter and set then slowly spinning you could populate around 30% of the inside surface and provide pleasantly habitable conditions for an entire Earth sized population and more.

[sureshbansal342]

I have observed that biology has played a major role to form the
earth.infect earth itself is a single living organism like a tree.please
observe the following explanation for this hypothesis. this hypothesis is
like a Gaia hypothesis supported by some more evidences.
1. Amino acid and Biological chemistry in chondrite meteorite.
we have found amino acid and biological chemistry inside the
chondrite meteorite. as i consider them seeds of planets. one planet is a
result of one asteroid as one tree is a result of one seed. these amino
acid and biological chemistry is a main property of any seed.
http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj
2. bark as continent; if you will observe the continents can be fit in
small globe like a puzzle game same bark can be fit in small gorth of same
log of tree.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark &
Continents
http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS
http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree
http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

3. core and crust; same as in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust
4. plate tectonic; yes i agreed with PT but at the end biological process
beneath the earth surface is responsible for the motion of plates. same PT
is happening in the log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.
http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK
5. subduction zone;same in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

6. HYDROCARBON a scientific ; this is a scientific evidence of my
hypothesis.that earth itself is a single living organism and producing
hydrocarbons like any all living organism. I believe crude oil has both
deep and organic origin . fossil oil theory is not correct. we have
observed hydrocarbons at almost whole universe including Titan. there is no
solid reason that hydrocarbons at earth has been from fossils of past life
and at rest universe with different method where no life has been observe
yet.
More over i have solved the mystery that why sediments are signatures of
presence of oil while has no involvement to produce it. this is the main
logic of fossil oil theory. infect i have solved this mystery of
petroleum. my theory is between the current biogenic and abiogenic
theories. I believe oil has both deep and organic origin like a bark oil.
Making Oil From Birch Bark
7. presence of same minerals like iron,nickel,moly,crome,V,MN,ZN,,,,,,,,,
etc at earth are also present in all living organism.this is very much
common factor in all living organism inculding hydrocarbons.
I have lot of these type of evidence and putting all together we can
conclude it that earth itself is a living thing that has been grown from
small asteroid.I need some assistance for further examinations.
regs
SURESH BANSAL
sureshbansal342@gmail.com

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well actually................ sorry Suresh but really no, and indeed no, although on reflection, well NO! really I'm sorry but are you really suggesting that trees evolved as some sort of cause and effect replication of the Earth's geology?
As if something is responsible for it all...

Ok, well here is a problem for you, the tree, as you describe which is of the woody Archaeopteris type did not appear until some 130 million years after life moved onto the land from the sea which hardly makes them an example of some primal system.

So I'm sorry but I don't really follow or indeed agree with any of what you say at all.

[Shadowwolf]

I have observed that biology has played a major role to form the earth.

Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning but as it appears, no not really, Terra formed without the input of biology and long before any biological processes formed on the planet. Biology has had some input in altering the planets surface after it arrived but nothing else, and there is nothing tree like about the planet.

1) Asteroids are not planet seeds that grow to be planets like an acorn becomes an oak, they're just hunks of rock or amalgamations of dust and ice adrift in the void, left-overs from the formation of the system. Without massive clouds of dust and gas they are not going to become much else. You may claim that asteroids grow to be planets like a seed becomes tree but you've proffered no evidence to support that claim.

2) That's just conflation, lots of things we can break and fit back together that have no relation to each other or planet.

3) The crust sits atop a vast ocean of molten rock which surrounds a rapidly spinning solid core which generates our magnetic field. Pretty much nothing like bark on a tree.

4) Biological processes have nothing to do with plate tectonics, it's the movement of the molten stuff the crust rests on. You won't find classes on plate tectonics in a biology course.

5) What hypotheses? Nor does merely saying 'hydrocarbons' prove anything. You're right in that oil has an organic past, it formed from dead organisms like plankton long, long ago and this is well known. We know hydrocarbons come from biological and non-biological sources as it is an organic substance, decomposition tends to provide the base elements easily and in abundance thus it is a source of it. This is well known, fairly solid stuff and not in the least bit under question, you'll have to do better than assertion to make your point.

Your mysteries seem to be your own invention and I've really no idea what you're on about after that.

7) These minerals are present in us and other organisms because we live on the planet and all life here makes use of the resources and chemistry available; it cannot make use of that which is not there. None of this makes Terra a living thing, I've heard claims of all life being interconnected to the extent that it forms a single organism but that's not the planet just what's on it; I don't buy that either. Nor has anything presented proven anything, mostly it's just assertions and not being informed or simply ignoring what is known about things like oil and hydrocarbons.

Pictures don't really help much either I'm afraid.

[sureshbansal342]

This is a reverse theory that starts from hydrocarbons.my theory is between the current biotic and abiotic theories. I beleive oil is organic in origin ,very much true but it is not fossil oil.there is no evidence that it is a fossil oil,only some speculations . it is organic oil like a bark oil and has been generated in deep origin of earth without any involvement of fossils.petroleum is not a product of past organic matter but shale is a product of pregenerated hydrocarbons by the seepage of hydrocarbons in past. I totally disagree with fossil oil theory but respect only first part that it is organic in origin. And ultimately scientific evidence that earth itself producing these hydrocarbons like all other living things in deep origin and also itself is a single living thing supporting by other visual evidence.just need to observe with new mind.sureshbansal342@gmail.com

[M Paul Lloyd]

A challenging concept sureshbansal342..... although I'm a bit unsure as to why your link leads to your email address?
Would that perhaps be an error on your part?

[Shadowwolf]

I believe the email address is the intended idea Mr M and not a broken link, why I don't know but the email is deliberate.

I think you'll find that fossil fuel is a bit more than just some idle speculation everyone thinks sounds nice. Now the problem I think you're succumbing to is conflation, you appear to see a substance commonly called oil that is derived from living plants on one hand and something called oil extracted from deep reservoirs on the other. For some reason you've placed the significance on the substance derived from the plants and from there assume that everything called oil must be derived from living plants, therefore oil from the ground must come from a plant of some sort.

However, this is mistaken thinking, not everything called oil means that it comes from the same source and to be technically correct, the oil from the ground should properly be called petroleum. Perhaps thinking of it that way will help get past confusing plant oils with fossil hydrocarbons.

Of course were you to seriously contend that Terra is a giant tree / plant in complete opposition to established geology and well, reality, you would need evidence and I'm afraid a series of meaningless images, conflation, some casual assertions and appeals to "new mind" don't count as evidence.