But if you say there will be multiple people with big space ship fleets - sure, that's cool too!
Speciation happens anyways.
There's 8 billion people on the planet already and something like 80% live in developing countries. There are massive productivity gains to be had as those people improve their education and move into more productive jobs.
Growth has its limits. It is generally sigmoidal (S curve), not exponential. It’s reasonable to assume we’ll hit the inflection point long before the sun becomes a problem.
My point is that we’ll need to find an equilibrium that doesn’t rely on continual growth, because that won’t be sustainable. After we manage that, there’ll be still enough time to worry about the sun. And if we don’t manage that, human life on Earth will be doomed regardless of the sun.
Pop science has prepared me for this moment. I believe all it takes is for everyone in China to jump at the same time. Maybe they can do that a few times a year for a few thousand years and we're saved.
I'm joking.
>Pop science has prepared me for this moment. I believe all it takes is for everyone in China to jump at the same time.
Instead of the orbit perhaps changing the tilt would be better, so everyone in China and their dragons should do a sprint up north. Why should Siberia shiver in the cold while Africa scorch in the sun? the discrimination is obvious.
Also, would the mass of Earth gradually moving location in the solar system disrupt other objects like say maybe something in the asteroid belt? Would that disruption then start a chain reaction of other objects having their orbits perturbed to the point we've no unleashed a new season of asteroid danger? What about the decreased distance to Jupiter? Big boy will have some strange affects on earth too would he not? Would we lose our moon to the pull from Jupiter? What happens to our tidal systems at that point? Would the loss of the moon be countered the new tidal pulls from Jupiter?
So many questions
I have no idea what distance would be necessary relative to Mars/Jupiter/asteroid belt.
Don’t worry, we aren’t changing the Earth’s orbit in your lifetime.
Unless technological civilization collapses it seems a bit odd that we'd still need date standards in a hundred years.
It is dangerous here! You never know when a supernova or magnetar quake might sterilize the entire solar system. By the time you know it is coming, it is too late to do anything but flee without baggage.
If you bring the solar system along, you have that; I assume you accelerate slowly enough to bring along the Kuiper Belt. It will take a long time before you need to start thinking about dismantling Jupiter.
If you solve the p-11B fusion problem (maybe you invent a mirror for x-rays?), you don't need the sun anymore, and may pick up and move operations to another solar system that is already moving off-disc at a good clip. You can bring along rotating cans of bio-stuff if you still use it (or anyway keep it as pets).
The new solar system can have a dead-ish star so the planets are frozen and convenient to mine for volatiles.
Doesn't matter in which direction you are positioned, except for distance. Which would mean the really deep space between galaxies. But then you'd have to watch out for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seyfert_galaxy ies, too!
Whose jet's could fry us even more easily, because 'out there', we wouldn't be protected by the pressure of solar/stellar/galactic wind, dust clouds, nebula, which could protect us (if we are lucky).
The jet I wrote about is one you induce to emit from a pole of the sun, for thrust. I have no idea what this other jet you mention is.
> ...boosted out of the plane of the galaxy.
Which made no sense to me, because to escape the other, naturally occurring cones of radiation, emitting from different sources, only distance would matter.
Just rising above the thick part of our galaxy wouldn't be enough IMO. Because it doesn't really matter if you are cought in such a cone, from some side, or from above or below.
Because they are oriented randomly, according to the rotational axis of the object in question, which isn't aligned to some 'plane' (AFAIK).
So the only way to be sure would be a much larger distance from the galactic mess, out into real emptiness. Which would open it's own can of worms.
Above the plane of the disc, only jet sources near the "top surface" (if there were one) have less dust between them and us than when we were in it. Generally, being farther away is better.
Before you can get far away from your galaxy, you spend a very great deal of time near or in it. Being someplace farther from hazards during that time is better than being nearer to them. The alternative would be to blast toward the rim, staying in the thick part, and spend the whole time getting to the rim at about as much risk as when you started.
Yes! That's the point :-)
Edit: No matter if jet or not, if something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraluminous_X-ray_source#/me... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#/media/File:Ga... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazar is pointed at us, we are toast, no matter where we are. Except for distance to origin.
OTOH I don't see the danger from anything 'near' to us, going boom, when one of the poles of the rotational axis, no matter the emission mechanism, is not pointed at us.
The omnidirectional stuff is just too weak. If not, we'd be toast anyways, here, or whereever else.
So I'm still unconvinced by your reasoning, but thanks for trying to explain.
Dust clouds shield you from some kinds of radiation, but make others radically more harmful.
Jet phenomena are commonly long-lived, and avoided by steering away from where they point. You can steer only when you are moving. AGN jets come only from supermassive black holes, and we have only one of those.
The only protection is distance, and distance is achieved by going. Gamma-ray bursts we detect have all been pointed at us, but all from distant galaxies.
But not without asking whether that going would be achievable by any handwavy Sci-Fi means in the necessary time frames. And knowing in advance, before any wavefront is hitting us.
/waving hands... ;-)
For specific threats, you need to put your valuables in cans and boost those to someplace safer, choosing somewhere with resources to replace what you leave behind.
For that to be doable you probably need to solve p-11B fusion, or something better we don't know anything about yet.
What I think is more feasible and more benevolent than preventing a mass extinction is we should slowly expand our orbit so we can survive the brightening sun for at least a while longer. Basically, all we need to do is increase our planets speed over hundreds of millions of years. A certain mass of asteroids with steerable self correcting orbits could push small amounts of speed into our planet that would build up over time.
Even if we don't make it, we at least give life more time to do it's thing.