Death of earth

[jobyts]

Is there a scientific prediction on the death of earth. By death, I mean earth loosing its orbit and crash into something else, or breaking into pieces by some earthly internal factors. Or the earth is supposed to orbit as a single piece till the end of sun?

When the sun's gravitational numbers change (I'm guessing gravitational force would be different, say, when the sun turns into red giant) significantly, is one case that the earth looses its orbit - that I can think of.

[JaredJames]

Nothing outside of the death of the sun as far as I'm aware. That occurs in circa 5 billion years.

[Evo]

Maybe, maybe not.When Milky Way and Andromeda Collide, Earth Could Find Itself Far From Home

If Homo sapiens can stick it out on Earth for another two billion years, our descendants may witness quite a show in the night sky. Researchers estimate that the Milky Way will collide with its nearest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy, at around that time—well before the sun collapses into a white dwarf, perhaps destroying the Earth in the process. continued...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-milky-way-and-andromeda-collide-earth-could-find-itself-far-from-home

[JaredJames]

Maybe, maybe not.continued...

2 billion years! That soon? Not cool.

Bugger, had some really great plans for that final 3 billion.

[D H]

The end will occur well before that. The Sun produces ever more energy as it ages. In a billion years or so it will be 10% hotter than it is now. The oceans will boil and plate tectonics will end -- if that hasn't already happened. Plate tectonics may come to an end even sooner than that per some geologists. Even before that, photosynthesis will come to a halt as plants continue to deplete the atmosphere of CO2. The Earth (life on Earth) has maybe half a billion years left -- according to some.

The nice thing about all of these dire predictions is that no one will be around to see whether there conjectures are falsified.

[JaredJames]

In a billion years or so it will be 10% hotter than it is now.

Wales might get a tidy summer for once!
The oceans will boil and plate tectonics will end -- if that hasn't already happened. Plate tectonics may come to an end even sooner than that per some geologists. Even before that, photosynthesis will come to a halt as plants continue to deplete the atmosphere of CO2.

Might start looking for property on Mars...
The Earth (life on Earth) has maybe half a billion years left -- according to some.

You guys really don't want me to carry out the next 5 billion years of plans I've got.
The nice thing about all of these dire predictions is that no one will be around to see whether there conjectures are falsified.

Speak for yourself. :biggrin:

[Evo]

The end will occur well before that. The Sun produces ever more energy as it ages. In a billion years or so it will be 10% hotter than it is now. The oceans will boil and plate tectonics will end -- if that hasn't already happened. Plate tectonics may come to an end even sooner than that per some geologists. Even before that, photosynthesis will come to a halt as plants continue to deplete the atmosphere of CO2. The Earth (life on Earth) has maybe half a billion years left -- according to some.

The nice thing about all of these dire predictions is that no one will be around to see whether there conjectures are falsified.:frown:

[Ilovemonty]

Lol... Hoax and plus I live in christchurch, nz I was there I witness people being crushed! I dnt believe in 2012

[E=ML^2]

Afaik, that 5 Ga number is what the consensus is regarding the future of the sun. As the sun progresses into its next stage that whole red giant thing is going to be the end of Earth. However, the chances that Earth will collide with anything when the Milky way and Andromeda will collide are relatively slim [lacking source to back-up claim] because of the immense sizes of the galaxies involved. Though, I can't answer the question, could a rogue asteroid sent of its original course due to this event hit Earth?

D_H Could you please elaborate on the topic of the ending of plate tectonics, I'd like to know more? :)

[Nicook5]

I have a question. What about the death of the earth's dynamo? Since without it there's no magnetic field :frown: which would lead to a ton of problems, namely radiation and the atmosphere( not sure how much it would affect the atmosphere though). Just because i've been studying Mars recently (which has a dead dynamo). Does anyone really know anything about the earth's dynamo and its lifespan? If anyone could point me towards something it would be greatly appreciated.

[Darken-Sol]

2 billion years! That soon? Not cool.

Bugger, had some really great plans for that final 3 billion.

3 billion years worth of beer and loose women down the drain. to hell with that, lets pack up in a cozy dimension(one not affected by collisions) and wait it out. i'm sure we'll find a home afterward, i'll bring a card board box. (rent free)

[Drakkith]

The end will occur well before that. The Sun produces ever more energy as it ages. In a billion years or so it will be 10% hotter than it is now. The oceans will boil and plate tectonics will end -- if that hasn't already happened. Plate tectonics may come to an end even sooner than that per some geologists. Even before that, photosynthesis will come to a halt as plants continue to deplete the atmosphere of CO2. The Earth (life on Earth) has maybe half a billion years left -- according to some.

The nice thing about all of these dire predictions is that no one will be around to see whether there conjectures are falsified.

Has anyone taken into account the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by humans? By respiration and by burning things like fossil fuels. I would assume so, but I figured I'd just ask.

[DaveC426913]

Well, now we start splitting hairs about what "death" means to a planet.

Certainly, being engulfed fits anyone's bill.

Does an excess of CO2? Asteroid hit? They wouldn't even wipe out the biosphere.

[JaredJames]

Well, now we start splitting hairs about what "death" means to a planet.

Certainly, being engulfed fits anyone's bill.

Does an excess of CO2? Asteroid hit? They wouldn't even wipe out the biosphere.

I consider death to be the destruction of the planet.

Anything else would simply be a potential end to life or simply significant changes to the planet.

[Ryan_m_b]

Does anybody know of any ideas about how the biosphere may evolve around the changes in temperature, depleted co2 etc? It occurs to me that the atmosphere, temperature and even day length of Earth have changed radically over the last few hundred million/billion years. I wouldn't find it inconceivable to imagine that in 1 or 2 billion years Earth would still have life Jim, but not as we know it.

2 billion years! That soon? Not cool.

Bugger, had some really great plans for that final 3 billion.

Meh, my plans involve racking up Googlelexs of Pounds of Debt so it's not so bad for me that the world ends before the collectors come.

[Borek]

Has anyone taken into account the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by humans? By respiration and by burning things like fossil fuels. I would assume so, but I figured I'd just ask.

Without tectonics sooner or later most of CO2 will land in limestone and will be never again put into the atmosphere.

[Drakkith]

Without tectonics sooner or later most of CO2 will land in limestone and will be never again put into the atmosphere.

I see. Hrmm...

[AtomicJoe]

The earth will gradually disappear out of the solar system as tidal power saps it's orbit energy. Thus it will become a frozen block of ice.
Either that or spiral into the sun, I didn't do the maths because the result is the same, death.
If we are lucky we might get hit by another stray planet to put some more energy back into the orbit, but don't rely on it.

[DaveC426913]

The earth will gradually disappear out of the solar system as tidal power saps it's orbit energy. Thus it will become a frozen block of ice.
Either that or spiral into the sun, I didn't do the maths because the result is the same, death.

I don't think that current understanding of planetary migration posits a high likelihood of either scenario.

I could be wrong. Do you have anything to back it up?

[AtomicJoe]

I don't think that current understanding of planetary migration posits a high likelihood of either scenario.

I could be wrong. Do you have anything to back it up?



Yea tidal energy comes from the earth's orbit (obviously).

As we take energy the planet loses it, it get slower and spirals into the sun.

[DaveC426913]

Yea tidal energy comes from the earth's orbit (obviously).

As we take energy the planet loses it, it get slower and spirals into the sun.

While migration due to tidal forces occurs, it is not automatically a runaway process. Again, do you have anyting to back it up or are you going on what you think ought to happen?

[Borek]

Yea tidal energy comes from the earth's orbit (obviously).

Please elaborate. The way I understand what you wrote, you are wrong.

There are three possible sources of energy present - one is rotational energy of the planet, other is kinetic energy of the planet orbiting Sun, third is kinetic energy of the Moon (which you seem to ignore). Which one do you mean?

[NUCENG]

Wales might get a tidy summer for once!


Might start looking for property on Mars...


You guys really don't want me to carry out the next 5 billion years of plans I've got.


Speak for yourself. :biggrin:

We need to do something. Even a billion years doesn't give enough time for the Cubs to win the World Series.

[AtomicJoe]

Please elaborate. The way I understand what you wrote, you are wrong.

There are three possible sources of energy present - one is rotational energy of the planet, other is kinetic energy of the planet orbiting Sun, third is kinetic energy of the Moon (which you seem to ignore). Which one do you mean?

The kinetic energy of the earth.
We are using that energy up.

[Drakkith]

The kinetic energy of the earth.
We are using that energy up.

What? How are we doing that?

[Ryan_m_b]

The kinetic energy of the earth.
We are using that energy up.

Erm, what?

[Borek]

The kinetic energy of the earth.
We are using that energy up.

No.

But I wonder what your reasoning is.

[AtomicJoe]

Erm, what?

Well it is pretty simply isn't it, I am not sure what the trouble is.

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

This energy is not for free, otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine machine.

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit
to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

Basic physics really, is it not?

[DaveC426913]

Well it is pretty simply isn't it, I am not sure what the trouble is.

Basic physics really, is it not?

The trouble is that it's all wrong. There's some big misunderstandings happening here.

For starters, nothing Earth's internal processes or overall motion can do will have any effect on its orbit, any more than a spacesuited man floating in freefall can affect his position in space.

Earth is getting its internal energy from several sources: initial heat from formation, radioactive decay, gravitational compression, sunlight. With the exception of the last one, the other ones will (eventually) peter out, leaving the Earth a cold dead rock like the Moon.

But it will still happily proceed in its orbit like it has done for the last 5Gy.

[Ryan_m_b]

Well it is pretty simply isn't it, I am not sure what the trouble is.

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

The molten core of the Earth and it's magnetic field are nothing to do with the Earth spinning.

This energy is not for free, otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine machine.

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit
to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

But nothing is sapping the kinetic energy of the Earth

Basic physics really, is it not?

It is but you still have to get it right

[AtomicJoe]

The molten core of the Earth and it's magnetic field are nothing to do with the Earth spinning.



Oh yes it is.

But nothing is sapping the kinetic energy of the Earth





Yes it is why is it slowing then?
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-8862.html


It is but you still have to get it right[/QUOTE]

And indeed I have.

The science is right and the evidence backs it up.

[DaveC426913]

The science is right and the evidence backs it up.

Then please explain what the Earth's rotation has to do with its supposed orbital decay into the sun.

Because if you can get a free-falling body in a vacuum to move its centre of mass just by manipulating its internal parts, you will be a bazillionaire and own Earth's space empire.

[AtomicJoe]

The molten core of the Earth and it's magnetic field are nothing to do with the Earth spinning.



But nothing is sapping the kinetic energy of the Earth



It is but you still have to get it right

The trouble is that it's all wrong. There's some big misunderstandings happening here.

For starters, nothing Earth's internal processes or overall motion can do will have any effect on its orbit, any more than a spacesuited man floating in freefall can affect his position in space.

Earth is getting its internal energy from several sources: initial heat from formation, radioactive decay, gravitational compression, sunlight. With the exception of the last one, the other ones will (eventually) peter out, leaving the Earth a cold dead rock like the Moon.

But it will still happily proceed in its orbit like it has done for the last 5Gy.


The earth is not in free-fall it the true sense of the word, there are forces acting on it.

Also I don't think compression heat is a source of energy really it's just heat.

[AtomicJoe]

Then please explain what the Earth's rotation has to do with its supposed orbital decay into the sun.

It's kinetic energy is being converted into electricity.

[DaveC426913]

It's kinetic energy is being converted into electricity.

OK, we've been pretty patient. We've given you every opportunity to explain yourself in terms of currently understood science. But fun's over.

You are badly misinformed about the physics of heavenly bodies; every statement you've made demonstrates this. Hopefully you will recognize this and stop making uneducated claims.

If not, I do have an obligation to ensure that the quality of PF posts is kept up and so will report this thread if it continues.

[Andre]

Careful though, it's really more complicated, Maybe read Correia et al 2002 first proposing transition of forces in Venus causing the spinning to stop.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus2.2002.pdf

[Borek]

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

Which kinetic energy - kinetic energy of orbital motion, or kinetic energy of rotational motion?

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

What about momentum conservation?

Basic physics really, is it not?

Basic physics indeed, but it won't hurt to get it right.

[DaveC426913]

Careful though, it's really more complicated, Maybe read Correia et al 2002 first proposing transition of forces in Venus causing the spinning to stop.

http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf
http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus2.2002.pdf

There's no argument that external forces can affect the rotation of planets. It's the other way round that has Joe confused. That a planet's internal forces could somehow affect its orbit.

[Andre]

What about momentum conservation?
.

Regardless of the claims made here, note that conservation of momentum (Newtonian) is only happening in a closed system, not affected by external forces. However bodies in a solar system are subject to gravity and can exchange momentum by gravitational forces,

[AtomicJoe]

Which kinetic energy - kinetic energy of orbital motion, or kinetic energy of rotational motion?



What about momentum conservation?



Basic physics indeed, but it won't hurt to get it right.


As you know I am being threatened by a forum member here if I try to reply.

[AtomicJoe]

There's no argument that external forces can affect the rotation of planets. It's the other way round that has Joe confused. That a planet's internal forces could somehow affect its orbit.

Quote me where I said that. I see to have forgot I said that.

Either that or apologise, I will apologise if I did say it.

[Ryan_m_b]

As you know I am being threatened by a forum member here if I try to reply.

You're not going to be reported if you try to learn as opposed to claiming things as "basic physics" and then go onto demonstrate a lack thereof. Perhaps phrase your posts as "what am I doing wrong" in future

[AtomicJoe]

You're not going to be reported if you try to learn as opposed to claiming things as "basic physics" and then go onto demonstrate a lack thereof. Perhaps phrase your posts as "what am I doing wrong" in future

Well it seems what I am doing wrong is that I have failed to make the claims you or statements you claim I have made.

Can you provide me with a quote to back up your statement:- "It's the other way round that has Joe confused. That a planet's internal forces could somehow affect its orbit."

[DaveC426913]

Quote me where I said that. I see to have forgot I said that.

Either that or apologise, I will apologise if I did say it.

Post 28:

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

This energy is not for free, otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine machine.

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit
to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

I believe you were offering an apology? :wink:

[Ryan_m_b]

Well it seems what I am doing wrong is that I have failed to make the claims you or statements you claim I have made.

Can you provide me with a quote to back up your statement:- "It's the other way round that has Joe confused. That a planet's internal forces could somehow affect its orbit."

Well for a start that wasn't me but you really should look up some of the basics of this or just ask what you are doing wrong if you want to learn. So far you have just repeated erroneous statements, there is nothing wrong with this if you a prepared to learn what it is you are doing wrong.

At some point we all had to learn, theres no shame in that. You don't need to turn this into an argument or restate incorrect claims

[AtomicJoe]

Post 28:

I believe you were offering an apology? :wink:

No I do not.

The statements do not back up your claim, if you think they do you have clearly misunderstood them.
There is no reference to internal energy in them.

[DaveC426913]

No I do not.

The statements do not back up your claim, if you think they do you have clearly misunderstood them.
I am not making any claim. I quoted you, in whole and in context. The assertion you are making is false.

There is no reference to internal energy in them.

I quoted you, how many times do you need your own words read to you?
As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

[JaredJames]

What happened to this thread? Was going well for the first few posts and now this.

AtomicJoe, what are you talking about? Everything I've read from you is utter rubbish. Inside earth has nothing to do with the orbit. To reinforce this, the insides of the moon / mars are dead and yet they still orbit with no effect on their orbit.

[AtomicJoe]

I am not making any claim. I quoted you, in whole and in context. The assertion you are making is false.

You made this statement I believe:-

"You are badly misinformed about the physics of heavenly bodies; every statement you've made demonstrates this."


You have not provided any quotes to back it up either?

Can you quote just one wrong statement I have made?

We can move on to the rest after that.

[AtomicJoe]

What happened to this thread? Was going well for the first few posts and now this.

AtomicJoe, what are you talking about? Everything I've read from you is utter rubbish. Inside earth has nothing to do with the orbit. To reinforce this, the insides of the moon / mars are dead and yet they still orbit with no effect on their orbit.

Again another one piling in with vague accusations, provide the quotes, provide the evidence.

[DaveC426913]

OK. Fun's over. You have been shown where your errors are, given quotes in fact. The onus is on you to see the errors.


This thread needs to be rolled back to fix the misstatements.

[Borek]

Regardless of the claims made here, note that conservation of momentum (Newtonian) is only happening in a closed system, not affected by external forces. However bodies in a solar system are subject to gravity and can exchange momentum by gravitational forces,

That's not exactly true. Momentum is conserved - period. If it seems to be not conserved it means something outside gains momentum.

However, many of the systems we are talking about are pretty well described as closed. Conservation of momentum is a reason why Moon is getting (on average) further and further from Earth. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Angular_momentum_and_energy

[Ryan_m_b]

You made this statement I believe:-

"You are badly misinformed about the physics of heavenly bodies; every statement you've made demonstrates this."


You have not provided any quotes to back it up either?

Can you quote one just wrong statement I have made?

We can move on to the rest after that.

Ok here's some examples

The earth will gradually disappear out of the solar system as tidal power saps it's orbit energy. Thus it will become a frozen block of ice.
Either that or spiral into the sun, I didn't do the maths because the result is the same, death.
If we are lucky we might get hit by another stray planet to put some more energy back into the orbit, but don't rely on it.

You make the statement that "tidal power saps it's orbit energy" but this is not true.

The kinetic energy of the earth.We are using that energy up

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

This energy is not for free, otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine machine.

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit
to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

Basic physics really, is it not?

We are not sapping the kinetic energy of the Earth at all, the Earth's spin does not change it's kinetic energy. The link you provided was to a forum, not any kind of peer-reviewed research

Oh yes it is (claiming the Earth's spin creates it's magnetic field)

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by it's molten core, not it's spin

[JaredJames]

Can you quote one just wrong statement I have made?

Here's a few:
Yea tidal energy comes from the earth's orbit (obviously).

As we take energy the planet loses it, it get slower and spirals into the sun.

Here you ignore the moons own momentum and assume it is all from the earth.
The kinetic energy of the earth.
We are using that energy up.

I'll assume by "we" you don't mean us as humans - otherwise, if you do it's complete rubbish.
Well it is pretty simply isn't it, I am not sure what the trouble is.

The earth is like a generator, it is using it's kinetic energy for power.

As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the earths core.

No it is sapping energy from the earth, slowing it down and causing it to slow down, it's orbit
to decrease and for it to warm up as it plunges, eventually into the Sun.

Basic physics really, is it not?

Well, everything there.
Oh yes it is.

And indeed I have.

The science is right and the evidence backs it up.

All of this is non-sense (you are claiming the earths rotation turns the core of the earth).
The earth is not in free-fall it the true sense of the word, there are forces acting on it.

Also I don't think compression heat is a source of energy really it's just heat.

Heat isn't energy?
It's kinetic energy is being converted into electricity.

Again, this comes back to your previous orbit - core issue above.

Shall I continue?

EDIT: ryan was there before me.

[DaveC426913]

Y'all might want to hold off on writing long posts at this point. The thread is up for review.

[JaredJames]

Y'all might want to hold off on writing long posts at this point. The thread is up for review.

Up for review? It should be put against the wall and shot.

[Borek]

Up for review? It should be put against the wall and shot.

Nailed.