0

I know this sound weird but What will happen if the earth fell into the sun some kids say why does the moon not fall down well thats a beautiful question the moon is constantly falling but what will really happen if the earth stopped its orbit and fell into the sun well if it did we would approximately have 64 days until the earth gets destroyed.

Day 0: The earth begins its journey into the sun

Day 6: After 6 days of falling into the sun the earths temperature rises 0.8 of a degree you wont feel the heat yet but you will soon.

Day 21: the earths temperature has risen 10 degrees now the earths experiencing a global heat wave.

Day 35: We are now %20 percent of the way to the sun the suns intense and the global temperature is 58.0 degrees the earth now exceeds the historical temperature in Death Valley CA.
For most people now cant survive either the airconditioners are failing or the powers being tapped out.

Day 41: we have now crossed venus's orbit the global temperature is 76 degrees too hot for the Sahara Desert Ant but the pompeii worm is still thriving which they can survive up to 80 degrees.

Day 47: We just left the habitable zone the temp now exceeds 106 degrees too even hot for us to live. but the pompeii worm is still thriving underneath the earths crust where the earth prevents boiling water from accessing the crust.

though tardigrades although known for water bears are the most earths extreme survivors at this point they know something is awry they go underground and keep %1 percent of water which can last up to a decade.

Day 54: Farewell dear Tardigrades you outlived us all they lasted from absolute zero to 151 degrees to hot for you.

Day 57: we are now the closest planet to the sun the earths temperature is now 200 degrees

Day 64: we now reached our final day the day starts of at an extreme 800 degrees the suns gravital force is so immense that it pulls the front of the earth towards the sun and crosses an imaginary line called Roche Limit the earths temperature hits 2000 degrees by midday and once the sun pulls it in at an extreme force the earth rips into smaller pieces of magma and rock.

THE END.
THIS IS ACTUALLY NEWTONS THEORY.

Day

Edited by pritaeas: Moved to Geeks Lounge.

9
Contributors
37
Replies
155
Views
3 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by RobertHDD
Featured Replies
  • > Clearly, that's not a good model because it estimates that the average temperature would be around 76C when crossing Venus' orbit, while Venus itself is at more than 450C (on the sunny side). Venus also has an atmosphere much thicker than Earth's which is why it is even hotter … Read More

  • > statistics is also used to "prove" that you have statistically say 9.5% more chance of developing a cancer by eating chicken soup of brand A in comparision with chicken soup of brand B and lots of other "scientifically" proved investigations. >Pills to magically loose weight, "scientifically" proven etc. There … Read More

  • > Your right Korea got tons of nuclear crap too which threatens the US every time Haha, no they're not the threat (they barely have nukes so probably don't have enough functional weapons nor delivery systems to do much). Biggest risk IMO is Pakistan and India fighting each other. They … Read More

0

According to Einstein the Sun uses up more and more matter, its gravitational pull should lessen and the Earth should move further away.

Edited by sneekula

0

Ah interesting fact Sneekula and our suns actually an energy source what happens if the sun dies out that means no more energy I actually heard news that they found 8 new planet candidates that could potentially be our next earth

0

I think that the temperature estimates are a bit naive. They seem to be obtained by assuming that the surface temperature is proportional to the amount of radiation it receives from the Sun, therefore leading to a inverse-square to distance law for the temperature, starting from the current position and temperature of the Earth. Clearly, that's not a good model because it estimates that the average temperature would be around 76C when crossing Venus' orbit, while Venus itself is at more than 450C (on the sunny side).

For one, the increase of solar radiation implies an increase of ionizing solar radiation, which would significantly change the topology of the atmosphere (pushing the ionosphere much closer to the surface) and resulting in a lot more UV radiation on the surface as well. Also, closer proximity to the Sun implies much more intense solar winds, which could basically blow away much of the atmosphere and overpower the Earth's magnetic field.

Also, as the Earth picks up speed, it will also undergo a lot of friction (aerodynamic drag with the surrounding solar winds and interstellar medium). The Earth will basically turn into a comet, and most of its volatile surface material will be stripped and blown away, that includes the atmosphere, the water, most of the soft crust (e.g. sediments), and obviously, all of us.

It would be pretty hard to predict or anticipate the exact way that all this would play out or a specific time-line, but I would say that we would have at most a few weeks of hiding in the shade, holding on to our dear lives, but it won't be long until all hell breaks loose (all stuff burning, evaporating, ionizing and being blown into the wake of Earth's descent), probably even earlier than Venus' orbit crossing.

0

What about the green house effect is that causing the earth to get hotter every year just 2 week back it was 66 degrees on the other side of Australia

1

Clearly, that's not a good model because it estimates that the average temperature would be around 76C when crossing Venus' orbit, while Venus itself is at more than 450C (on the sunny side).

Venus also has an atmosphere much thicker than Earth's which is why it is even hotter than Mercury on the surface even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

For one, the increase of solar radiation implies an increase of ionizing solar radiation, which would significantly change the topology of the atmosphere (pushing the ionosphere much closer to the surface).

Also, as the Earth picks up speed, it will also undergo a lot of friction (aerodynamic drag with the surrounding solar winds and interstellar medium). The Earth will basically turn into a comet, and most of its volatile surface material will be stripped and blown away, that includes the atmosphere, the water, most of the soft crust (e.g. sediments), and obviously, all of us.

I have two issues here, Earth has a lot more gravity than a comet so even the increased friction & solar wind probably won't do much more than blow off some of the atmosphere which could actually cool the planet down though would increase the amount of high-energy radiation reaching the ground. And the amount of time the atmosphere has to respond to these changes is quite short.

It would be pretty hard to predict or anticipate the exact way that all this would play out or a specific time-line, but I would say that we would have at most a few weeks of hiding in the shade, holding on to our dear lives.

Nope, us and most large animals would probably die in the immediate aftermath of a sudden stopping of Earths orbital motion which due to inertia would result in a human moving at high speed probably fast enough to be thrown off the planet definitely enough to get serious burns from friction with the atmosphere (orbital speed is 108,000 km/h, and escape velocity is only 40,000 km/h).

Edited by Agilemind

0

I actually heard news that they found 8 new planet candidates that could potentially be our next earth

Not going to happen unless we can find a way to build & control wormholes. Even still by the time the sun dies 'we' certainly won't be human anymore -> won't happen for several billions years into the future if we look back that far into the past there was only single celled life-forms if any on Earth.

0

Venus also has an atmosphere much thicker than Earth's which is why it is even hotter than Mercury on the surface even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

Right. My point exactly. There is a lot more to it than what the original article considers, which is very simplistic. NASA has a much nicer set of web-pages explaining the whole energy balance. It is clear that the current state of affairs is a fine balance of temperatures, climate effects and chemistry of the Earth and atmosphere.

Abruptly bumping up the amount of solar energy coming to the Earth would completely throw this out of wack. Given the very short time scale (few weeks), there's no chance for much of a new balance to establish itself, but the excess heat will still have to go somewhere, probably in the most volatile and shallow absorbers and reactors. It would probably cause a lot more surface-water evaporation. Also, things that can burn easily would probably do so in mass. And at that point, the chemistry of the atmosphere would change significantly, and there's no telling for sure what would happen.

Earth has a lot more gravity than a comet so even the increased friction & solar wind probably won't do much more than blow off some of the atmosphere

Gravity is a pretty weak force, and doesn't really matter much here. The main thing that keeps the atmosphere from blowing away is the Earth's magnetic field that diverts the solar winds (high energy charged particles coming towards the Earth at roughly 1.4 million km/h). But a substantial increase in the amount of solar wind could over-power the magnetic field with substantial shrinkage of it, to the point that a lot of material gets ionized, rises, and blows away. But again, this is hard to tell, because it is not clear how much wiggle-room we currently have (i.e., how close the atmosphere is to its "shield").

And what I mean by saying that gravity is weak is that under heavy high-energy radiation, ionized particles have plenty enough energy to escape Earth's gravity. Gravity is only good enough to hold together very low-energy particles (matter that is virtually inert, from a cosmic perspective). For example, the Sun's gravity can keep a few clumps of rock on orbit around it, but it can barely hold on to its own particles against the other mighty forces of nature.

And the amount of time the atmosphere has to respond to these changes is quite short.

Yeah, that's an another good point. Much of the temperature values quoted in the article assume a equilibrium value, which needs years if not centuries to stabilize. The main thing is that all the excess heat that the Earth would receive would not instantly distribute evenly. Some places and some elements would remain relatively unaffected, like the bulk of the oceans and the earth (crust), while other places would take the brunt of the excess heat, like the stuff closest to the surface and most exposed to the Sun. The weather systems would probably also become violent really quickly, because they do develop quickly (in few days / a week). But it would probably remain pretty much the same at any significant depth beneath the surface of the earth or oceans.

us and most large animals would probably die in the immediate aftermath of a sudden stopping of Earths orbital motion

Lol.. well, yeah, if you are going to assume an immediate stop to Earth's orbit, then, yeah, it won't be pretty. I'm not even sure the Earth itself would survive such as shock, it would probably get squashed like an orange hitting a brick wall. But that all depends on how quick the deceleration is. To stop comfortably for everyone, it would have to take about an hour or two to come to a full stop (relatively-speaking ;) ).

0

Earth IS in fact falling to the sun. But its orbital speed is such that it keeps spinning around. Speed too slow or zero, we will fall into the sun eventually, speed too big we will leave the solar system.
The closer the planet to the sun, the greater its orbital velocity.
Relative speeds of some planets(earth = 1.000):
Mercury 1.607
Saturn 0.323

Edited by ddanbe: addition

0

What external force could slow down the Earth orbital speed?

Superman of course. That will be the plot of Man of Steel 2!

0

Slowing down the Earth to a speed that would make it fall into the Sun within a few days time, would flatten it like a ripe tomato hitting a wall.

0

If an Metiorite hit earth and knocked it off its orbit will we be in trouble?

0

If an Metiorite hit earth and knocked it off its orbit will we be in trouble?
No.
All our troubles will soon end...

0

If an Metiorite hit earth and knocked it off its orbit will we be in trouble?

Its been the scenario for a number of SF novellas, if we survive to write books about it, all good

Newton: 1642 - 1726 , there was so much known about celestial mechanics, they had satellite cameras, gravity lenses, so much information to base theories on.
Isaac, tried to explain stuff, theory is not fact

RobertHDD 5 days ago: What about the green house effect is that causing the earth to get hotter every year just 2 week back it was 66 degrees on the other side of Australia

I call BullShit,
living in Tennant Creek, Northern Territory, Australia,
The temperature 2 weeks plus 5 days back, was 38 degrees C, the same as it always is.
The highest temperature ever recorded is 50.7, 800km south at Oodnadatta.
In 1960 before global warming

unless the other side of Australia, refers to somewhere between venus and Earth, a long long way the other side of Australia.

Oodnadatta 50.7 1960
Death Valley, 56.7 1913
Libya, 53 1922 which are surprise all before global warming

After Global warming we have NO highest temperatures, if it continues to warm, will we freeze

just playing the fool, statistics can be made to prove anything
It does worry me, about fools, how many arent playing and can be blindly led to believe anything that appears on the gogglebox

Edited by almostbob

0

If an Metiorite hit earth and knocked it off its orbit will we be in trouble?

Any meteor with striking the earth with enough force to affect its orbit will cause many more immediate problems like massive earthquakes and tsunamis, complete devastation over a vast area around the enormous crater from the shock wave and flash fires, plus create huge amounts of dust that will substantially dim the sun and potentially suffocate/damage the lungs of people over a large portion of the planet.

0

what about the green house effect is that causing the earth to get hotter every year
I call BullShit,

From a selfish point of view I'm almost glad you don't believe in AGW since I'm 99% sure we are going to go past the 'point of no return' now anyway (too much cheap fossil fuels have been made available through fracking & OPEC increasing production). Since I come from a country that will fair much much better than Australia (we'll get more forest fires and a bit more flooding but we'll have plenty of freshwater and our agricultural land area will probably grow, but Australia will lose agricultural land to sea-level rise and desertification plus have a worsening of droughts & water security issues as well as more intense flooding & bush fires & tropical cyclones), as long as you guys keep believing it isn't happening it means no environmental refugees begging at our borders, nor demands we stop profiting from our fossil fuel reserves, plus the expectation that you will start needing to import the food we have grown.

just playing the fool, statistics can be made to prove anything

Then use them to prove to me that gravity is a lie, that surgey to remove a tumour actually makes cancer worse, that antibiotics don't cure bacterial infections, that fishing practices have nothing to do with the decline in the majority of fished species, that being obese is good for your health, that women are more physically able (taller, stronger, faster) than men, that mental illness does not increase your risk of suicide, that using fertilizer doesn't improve the yield of crops, that older mothers do not have an increased risk of Down syndrome, and that smoking has no health risks what so ever.

Edited by Agilemind

Votes + Comments
misquoted, misrepresenting
0

@Agilmind: I agree with your reply about statistics. But I guess almostbob meant that statistics is also used to "prove" that you have statistically say 9.5% more chance of developing a cancer by eating chicken soup of brand A in comparision with chicken soup of brand B and lots of other "scientifically" proved investigations.Pills to magically loose weight, "scientifically" proven etc.

0

Then use them to prove to me that gravity is a lie

Well obviously since nobody knows how gravity works then it's only a "theory" like the theory of evolution and we all know that that is a lie. Therefore gravity doesn't exist.

smoking has no health risks what so ever.

I know a guy who smoked and he lived to 96 so therefore smoking has no healthy risks.

Hey, if a mother can say that a vaccne caused her child's autism (even though the vaccine was given at the same time that autism usually manifests) then I can claim the above.

And I'm only using the same sort of logic you seee on such reputable shows like Fox (Faux) News.

Edited by Reverend Jim

1

statistics is also used to "prove" that you have statistically say 9.5% more chance of developing a cancer by eating chicken soup of brand A in comparision with chicken soup of brand B and lots of other "scientifically" proved investigations.
Pills to magically loose weight, "scientifically" proven etc.

There is no such thing and I really really really really hate all the advertisers who misuse scientific terms and shoddy surveys and 'experiments' to deceive people into buying product X. That isn't statistics or science it is cheating and lying (try reading the fine print flashed on the screen for a few second in to go with each of those claims and you'll find the 'study' was total BS).

However I can promise you not a single one of those claims have review papers citing 50+ individual studies (published over the last 30 years) published in the most well respected scientific journals backing them up. The fact is the evidence for climate change is equivalent to most of the other scientific theories I cited not the nonsense commercial companies churn out to sell junk to the masses. There is no food or herb where there is scientific consensus that is reduces cancer (tobacco is about the only environmental factor with scientific consensus to cause cancer, though obesity is pretty well accepted to contribute as well) nor any diet or pill (except eat fewer calories than you burn) with a scientific consensus for losing weight. Individual studies reported in the media generally fail to be replicated by later studies which try to take that initial result forward and are then discarded by the majority of the relevant scientific community (but an experiment failing is typically not considered news-worthy by the media).

Indeed I purposely put in smoking & cancer link because the 'climate change denial' is strikingly similar in tone and argument strategy to the denial over the health risks of tobacco: the industry sets up & funds institutes and think-tanks to get them to produce research which contradict the independent & academic research while hiding the fact that it was commissioned by tobbaco companies, they hire lobbyists to convince politicians to do nothing because 'the science isn't conclusive' and insist 'more research is needed' long after scientific consensus has been reached, industry PR specialists circulating and promoting outdated or incorrect scientific papers in the media, and heavily relying on personal statements (rather than peer-reviewed scientific papers) by prominent scientists who typically are experts in an unrelated field (eg. a particle physicist), alternatively they may simply 'buy' retired or former scientists to essentially be spokes-persons for the company but who always claim to speaking for themselves in interviews (this may or may not be done by paying them to consult for the institutes they have set-up & fund).

In both cases (and for the evolution 'debate' as well), the deniers focus on discrediting or sowing doubt about the reliability and consistency of the scientific evidence supporting their theory of choice rather than try to prove that theory incorrect (because they cannot any more that one can prove any of the theories I listed above are false) or to prove an alternative theory (often they suggest a different 'possible' alternative for every single bit of evidence but make zero effort to test their alternative explanation -> because if they did it would certainly fail).

--> So if you want an easy way to see if some-one or some group is trying to deceive you about the credibility of a scientific theory just ask what have they done to prove an alternative to the theory. In the case of the autism-vaccine hypothesis dozens of much larger studies (the first one was only a dozen or so kids) were immediately undertaken and showed that vaccines do not cause autism, in the case of climate change no-one has built a mathematical model which excludes human CO2 emissions which matches the observed climate data as well as those that do include human CO2 emissions (the scientific community would love to see it if you've got one), in the case of tobacco nobody found a factor that explained the observations as well as smoking.

Edited by Agilemind

-2

@Agilemind, selective editing of a quote, is not particularly agile, not much mind, when the original is in plain view.

I was playing the fool, as stated, using statistics to demonstrate anything.
It has never reached 66 degrees anywhere the other side of Australia

unfortunately you seem to be one who isn't playing the fool
PEBKAC,
put brain in gear before mouth in motion

'The stupid, it burns'

Edited by almostbob

Votes + Comments
idiot and dumbfounded
0

HAHAHAHA You're resorting to ad hominems already - don't think you can counter a single one of the points I made in that massive post?, as you pointed out the original is clearly visible so people can decide for themselves whether my editing has made any difference to the meaning (it does not, just cuts out the bits addressing different posters and separates the two examples of the misuse/misrepresentation of "science" for commercial ends).

-2

@agilemind
There is nothing to counter,
a misrepresentation of my post was made by you, to further your argument
Your ramble, just your inability, to make concise argument.
I have not bothered to read it, it does not relate to my only discussion with you, about falsifying my post

every 0-10 scale needs a zero

plonk

Edited by almostbob

Votes + Comments
Your quite queer taday take a rest from machines mate
0

a misrepresentation of my post was made by you, to further your argument

Oh so you think (A)GW isn't Bullshit (If so I am glad to hear it)? But I think this part of your post suggests that is not the case:

After Global warming we have NO highest temperatures, if it continues to warm, will we freeze

or is it that you think there are some things that statistics can't be made to prove (like the volcano or orbital wobble or El Nino cycle or sun-spot 'alternatives' to AGW)? (It's impossible to tell what you mean by playing the fool when you seem to truly believe the foolish notion that GW isn't happening).

In either case, you continue to fail to actually explain what your problem is, and just resort to barely coherent insults.

I have not bothered to read it, it does not relate to my only discussion with you, about falsifying my post

How do you know what it relates to if you haven't read it?

your inability, to make concise argument.

You mean my insistence on making a fully explained argument with many examples and detailed evidence rather than simply stating an opinion using terrible grammar and insults to be accepted as fact?

Edited by Agilemind

0

Ah but if a black hole came along we be dead for sure because its so immense that even a thing at the speed of light cant escape

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.