Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Global Warming Question

  1. #1 Global Warming Question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    9
    Is it possible to add so much weight to the planet, without bringing in anything from outside the planet, to increase gravity so much it actually brings the Earth closer to the sun? Even if it just brings it a small bit closer, wouldn't it increase temperature enough to cause a catastrophe?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if you don take anything from outside it cant increase anymass without creating mass. wich isnt possible in thos quantities


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    The short answer is: no.


    "Weight" is a measurement of mass relative to the planet itself. Mass is dependent upon matter, which can not be created nor destroyed. You can only add it be bringing in new matter (asteroids, comets, etc).

    The amount of mass added to the planet by even an asteroid the size of the one alleged to have brought about the demise of the dinosaurs would be negligible to the amount of mass already present in the Earth.

    Moreover, I wouldn't think that even by increasing Earth's mass would affect our distance to the Sun. After all, there are much more massive planets than ours that are situated [i]further[/] from the Sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Riachella
    Posts
    2
    Here is a more pressing question..

    How does the emission of infrared radiation cool the earth?

    Feel free to read global cooling.

    Not the Iraq post, the first one (November 15)

    In a nutshell, where the greenhouse theory falls down is it equates the extra emission of infrared radiation with the atmospheric heat that ultraviolet rays are causing. If the emissions are accounted for as energy leaving the earth, then the heat we feel is accounted for as leaving the earth is the way the theory works. But that’s just plain wrong. The heat is still very much with us whether or not the infrared radiation is leaving the earth.
    it gets cold at night
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Global Warming Question 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy
    Is it possible to add so much weight to the planet, without bringing in anything from outside the planet, to increase gravity so much it actually brings the Earth closer to the sun? Even if it just brings it a small bit closer, wouldn't it increase temperature enough to cause a catastrophe?
    No. But it is possible to say No more foreign holidays and cars. Bah, people pay lip service to being green. I mean, look how many people pave over their front gardens because they just can't be bothered. I do weekend Nature Tasks every winter, and get pissed off with all the armchair greens in their 4x4s and Lexuses, and all those eco control-freaks who jet off to climate conferences in The Maldives or whatever, and generate a whole pile of hot air talking about what they're going to do with my money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    mass or weight wouldn't cause the earth to change orbit, unless it slowed the speed. in that case the slower speed would increase, not decrease the orbit distance. Jupiter has 300 times our mass but orbits way out there and orbits at 13 miles per second, compared to our 30 mps. Pluto is .002 of earths weight but traveling less than 5 mps is really out there.

    now speed the planet up, say to 48 mps, and we would be as close as mercury (same orbit). makes no sense to me, but thats the way its said to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    If you slowed the earth it would not rise to a higher orbit, if it did the space shuttle would not be able get home, and (think about it) we would rise from the surface of the earth. Slow the planet and it will spiral into the sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If you slowed the earth it would not rise to a higher orbit, if it did the space shuttle would not be able get home, and (think about it) we would rise from the surface of the earth. Slow the planet and it will spiral into the sun.
    the space shuttle is also orbiting the sun at 30 mps. as is the moon and the craft that traveled to and from. each is dealing with earths gravity.

    i really don't disagree and why i said "makes no sense to me", but the speed of orbits from closest to furthest is consistently less and the weights or mass have no apparent cause for orbit distance. logic tells me additional speed should increase the orbit (anti force).

    orb sd mass
    merc 47.9 .005
    vens 35. .82
    earth 29.8 1.00
    mars 24.1 1.07
    jup 13.1 318.0 moons all the same as planet host.
    sat 9.6 95.0
    uran 6.8 15
    nept 5.4 17
    plu 4.7 .002
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    If the earth gets closer to the sun its angular velocity increases by conservation of angular momentum. Momentum will be divided if there is mass loss, it can be passed on to another body by various meachanisms and the earth will slow down without necessarily moving outwards in its orbit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    If the object Q was attracted to earth and gained the momentum p, the earth would gain the same momentum p in the opposit direction. the angle which Q q approach with should also be considered. There is a slightly better chance that it will hit in direction away from the sun if outer circumstances were caotic. Hence the earth would gain a momentum away from the sun that increase with time, but other circumstances could dilate this effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    i'm getting to hate this word, but logic tells me, if you naturally speed up an object in orbit (forget mass) that orbit should increase. if you slow an object the orbit should degree. this is true for object in earth orbit. the chart offered above shows no such correlation and the orbits of each mass is determined be speed of the object. remember this includes many very small objects, such as Jupiter's moons. they are just orbiting the same speed has there host around the sun.

    if the object is slowed to zero it should fall into the sun, but according to the examples it would float into space or lose orbit. it has something to do with the speed of the solar system or maybe even with the speed of the galaxy.

    to further complicate matters, some objects orbit clockwise and are thought to have been hit by objects early in solar formation. if thats true, there speed at some point would have been zero. either they formed in another position or there was no gravity since they are there and did not fall into the sun...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    If you suddenly sped up an object in a stable circular orbit then it will either assume an eliptical orbit (with the innermost point being where the acceleration started) or if sufficiently accelerated it would leave the orbit and fly straight on. IF you are talking about complex orbits (such as the moon/erath/sun then it becomes a lot more complex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If you suddenly sped up an object in a stable circular orbit then it will either assume an eliptical orbit (with the innermost point being where the acceleration started) or if sufficiently accelerated it would leave the orbit and fly straight on. IF you are talking about complex orbits (such as the moon/erath/sun then it becomes a lot more complex.
    i have no reason to disagree. its not material but earth is not in a circular orbit. stable, but slightly elliptical.

    but, then in answers none of my questions. as i understand my research, no one can so ill just keep looking...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i'm getting to hate this word, but logic tells me, if you naturally speed up an object in orbit (forget mass) that orbit should increase. if you slow an object the orbit should degree. this is true for object in earth orbit. the chart offered above shows no such correlation and the orbits of each mass is determined be speed of the object. remember this includes many very small objects, such as Jupiter's moons. they are just orbiting the same speed has there host around the sun.

    if the object is slowed to zero it should fall into the sun, but according to the examples it would float into space or lose orbit. it has something to do with the speed of the solar system or maybe even with the speed of the galaxy.

    to further complicate matters, some objects orbit clockwise and are thought to have been hit by objects early in solar formation. if thats true, there speed at some point would have been zero. either they formed in another position or there was no gravity since they are there and did not fall into the sun...
    Objects orbit the Sun because of the distortion it's mass causes in space/time. Think of it as a well with the sun at the bottom. The walls of the well are flatest near the top and become steadily steeper closer to the Sun. If an object slowed to zero speed relative to the Sun in would drop straight in. Also if an object gains speed it would move to a higher postion in the well or have a more elliptical orbit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    yes; my analogy is the toilet. you flush, objects head away as they speed up but eventually all fall to the center with that force. this would also tell me in time all objects in orbit will be part of the sun with the added mass of about 5%. not much.

    what i have trouble with is why an object could not change position X miles from the sun to X +or-, from the sun with a speed change and that change would seem contrary to logic.

    that is if the earth sped up 5kps per century (very slowly & with the moon) and did this for 1000 years the speed then 79ks. my mind says it should be someplace close to Jupiter's orbit but indications are it would be inside mercuries. i also understand the total mass (sun-planets etc) formula but aside from making earth a Jupiter moon i am failing or missing something. maybe we are simply in free fall much as the space shuttle, but this has to due with mass or weight where planets do not. heavier objects in free fall require speed or distance to maintain free fall or orbit. also the idea of objects changing orbital directions (mercury clockwise) or objects entering from outside the solar system (not taking orbit) confuse the issue.

    the oval and elliptical issue really confuses me. this should be a time thing and the final placement in location in a near circular orbit, is apparently to its speed. Pluto is moving very slow in this elliptical orbit and should, to me, settle into that near circular orbit someplace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Not sure the toilet bowl analogy works very well in this case. friction plays a part in slowing the water down, making it fall to the bottom of the bowl.

    With the Suns gravity well, if an object gains enough speed it will eventually reach escape velocity. That is, it will have the energy to escape the space/time curvature around the the Sun.

    I'd think adding more mass to an object while maintaining it's speed would increase it's angular momentum and also it's orbit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Not sure the toilet bowl analogy works very well in this case. friction plays a part in slowing the water down, making it fall to the bottom of the bowl.

    With the Suns gravity well, if an object gains enough speed it will eventually reach escape velocity. That is, it will have the energy to escape the space/time curvature around the the Sun.

    I'd think adding more mass to an object while maintaining it's speed would increase it's angular momentum and also it's orbit.
    toilet bowl, is a high speed example. of course suction is a replacement for gravity. the point was the speed of the water increases in appearance toward the end.

    then why does speed determine distance from suns core (gravity) not mass. as small mass .005 mercury is traveling near 50kps and Jupiter 318 times earths weight is 13 kps. and even Pluto .002 at 5kps. what is the escape velocity with no outside solar system influence. this influence determines all with in the solar system. the sun, each planet and so on.
    accordingly if Jupiter was the furthest out at 3 kps then escape speed would take out a couple planets and most all, if not all moons.

    i agree more mass at the same speed should effect the orbit. even with a secondary gravitational effect. however the orbits of Jupiter and all its very small moons are the same speed nearly no mass and at some really different distances from secondary gravity, none are effected by the suns gravity for mass- only speed. not going to Saturn's rocky rings, ill jump to earth. so long as speed was maintained and some how earth absorbed the moon, the orbit should hold as is according to what is.

    i am beginning to think it has something to do with what i said above. no other possible gravitational effect, out side the system. this would take me to a chain reaction form of gravity and that always gets me into trouble. time to play poker, but thanks for input....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Not sure the toilet bowl analogy works very well in this case. friction plays a part in slowing the water down, making it fall to the bottom of the bowl.

    With the Suns gravity well, if an object gains enough speed it will eventually reach escape velocity. That is, it will have the energy to escape the space/time curvature around the the Sun.

    I'd think adding more mass to an object while maintaining it's speed would increase it's angular momentum and also it's orbit.
    toilet bowl, is a high speed example. of course suction is a replacement for gravity. the point was the speed of the water increases in appearance toward the end.

    then why does speed determine distance from suns core (gravity) not mass. as small mass .005 mercury is traveling near 50kps and Jupiter 318 times earths weight is 13 kps. and even Pluto .002 at 5kps. what is the escape velocity with no outside solar system influence. this influence determines all with in the solar system. the sun, each planet and so on.
    accordingly if Jupiter was the furthest out at 3 kps then escape speed would take out a couple planets and most all, if not all moons.

    i agree more mass at the same speed should effect the orbit. even with a secondary gravitational effect. however the orbits of Jupiter and all its very small moons are the same speed nearly no mass and at some really different distances from secondary gravity, none are effected by the suns gravity for mass- only speed. not going to Saturn's rocky rings, ill jump to earth. so long as speed was maintained and some how earth absorbed the moon, the orbit should hold as is according to what is.

    i am beginning to think it has something to do with what i said above. no other possible gravitational effect, out side the system. this would take me to a chain reaction form of gravity and that always gets me into trouble. time to play poker, but thanks for input....
    You need to think of it as the objects in orbit around the Sun traveling in straight paths. The reason they move in circular or eliptical orbits is because the space/time they are traveling through is distorted by the gravitational effect of the Sun. Accelerating or decelerating can be seen as changing the virtual path of the object which results in the change in orbit.

    Mercury is in orbit deep in the Suns gravity well where the distortion of space/time is the greatest resulting in the high orbital speed. The curvature is much less at Jupiters orbit. Jupiters moons are effected by the gravitational effect of Jupiters' mass the same way the planets are by the Sun's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •