Could Earth Lose its Orbit and Face Destruction?

  • Thread starter jobyts
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Earth
In summary: Speak for yourself. :biggrin: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
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #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
Andre said:
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.
 
  • #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

B The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Could life on Earth survive the far future?
Replies
16
Views
2K
B Gravitational Waves: A Question on Earth's Magnitude & Frequency
Replies
24
Views
1K
Sapient Life Indigenous to a Planet Orbiting a Red Dwarf
Replies
13
Views
3K
B Is Photon Rotation Key to Solar Wind and Earth's Orbit Stability?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
Replies
21
Views
3K
I How Big of an Object Orbiting Closer to the Sun Than Earth Could Be Overlooked?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Earth's Magnetic Field and Core
Replies
7
Views
5K
Hypothetical Question about Earth's Distant Future
Replies
5
Views
5K
NASA's DART spaceship has hit the Dimorphos asteroid: what now?
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top