Could Earth Lose its Orbit and Face Destruction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobyts
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential future scenarios for Earth, particularly focusing on the possibility of Earth losing its orbit, facing destruction, or undergoing significant changes due to various astronomical and geological factors. Participants explore theoretical outcomes related to the sun's evolution, galactic collisions, and the long-term effects of Earth's geological processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants speculate about the future of Earth in relation to the sun's transformation into a red giant, suggesting that this could lead to the loss of Earth's orbit.
  • Others mention the Milky Way and Andromeda collision, noting that while it may not directly destroy Earth, it could lead to significant changes in its position.
  • There are claims that the sun will become 10% hotter in about a billion years, potentially boiling the oceans and ending plate tectonics, which some geologists believe may happen even sooner.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the timeline for Earth's biosphere, suggesting that life may adapt to changing conditions over the next billion years.
  • Concerns are raised about the Earth's dynamo and its impact on the magnetic field, with questions about its lifespan and effects on the atmosphere.
  • There are discussions about the role of human activity in CO2 levels and its long-term implications for Earth's climate and geological processes.
  • One participant suggests that tidal forces could gradually sap Earth's orbital energy, leading to its eventual disappearance from the solar system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specific outcomes for Earth, with multiple competing views on how various factors may affect its future. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature and timeline of potential catastrophic events.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying definitions of what constitutes the "death" of a planet, leading to ambiguity in the discussion. There are also unresolved assumptions regarding the effects of geological changes and human impact on the atmosphere.

  • #31
ryan_m_b said:
The molten core of the Earth and it's magnetic field are nothing to do with the Earth spinning.

Oh yes it is.
ryan_m_b said:
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.htmlIt is but you still have to get it right[/QUOTE]

And indeed I have.

The science is right and the evidence backs it up.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
AtomicJoe said:
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.
 
  • #33
ryan_m_b said:
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

DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #35
AtomicJoe said:
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.
 
  • #37
AtomicJoe said:
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.
 
  • #38
  • #39
Borek said:
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,
 
  • #40
Borek said:
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.
 
  • #41
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #42
AtomicJoe said:
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
 
  • #43
ryan_m_b said:
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."
 
  • #44
AtomicJoe said:
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:
AtomicJoe said:
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 Earth's 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:
 
  • #45
AtomicJoe said:
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, there's no shame in that. You don't need to turn this into an argument or restate incorrect claims
 
  • #46
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #47
AtomicJoe said:
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.

AtomicJoe said:
There is no reference to internal energy in them.

I quoted you, how many times do you need your own words read to you?
AtomicJoe said:
As it revolves the energy is turned into currents in the Earth's core.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #50
JaredJames said:
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.
 
  • #51
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.
 
  • #52
Andre said:
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
 
  • #53
AtomicJoe said:
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 Earth's 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
 
  • #54
AtomicJoe said:
Can you quote one just wrong statement I have made?

Here's a few:
AtomicJoe said:
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.
AtomicJoe said:
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.
AtomicJoe said:
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 Earth's 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.
AtomicJoe said:
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 Earth's rotation turns the core of the earth).
AtomicJoe said:
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?
AtomicJoe said:
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.
 
  • #55
Y'all might want to hold off on writing long posts at this point. The thread is up for review.
 
  • #56
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #57
JaredJames said:
Up for review? It should be put against the wall and shot.

Nailed.
 

Similar threads

High School The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Could life on Earth survive the far future?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Gravitational Waves: A Question on Earth's Magnitude & Frequency
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Sapient Life Indigenous to a Planet Orbiting a Red Dwarf
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
High School Is Photon Rotation Key to Solar Wind and Earth's Orbit Stability?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Undergrad How Big of an Object Orbiting Closer to the Sun Than Earth Could Be Overlooked?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Earth's Magnetic Field and Core
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Hypothetical Question about Earth's Distant Future
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Graduate NASA's DART spaceship has hit the Dimorphos asteroid: what now?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K