Global Warming: The earth spiralling towards the sun

Why is it that the very plausible explanation for global warming, namely that the earth is spiralling towards the sun is not being publicly discussed? Possibly, scientists that are measuring this possibility don't wanna provoke mass hysteria.

Could you post a link for that? Or can you explain a little bit
about how the "earth is spiralling toward the sun"? How
can that be if the earth has its own fixed orbit? Gravity would
have to be suspended, I would think.

So what scientists are saying this? Where did you hear this?

You don't just "spiral out of orbit", that's really not how it works. The only way for the Earth to orbit more closely (barring even more unlikely events like the gravitational constant changing or something), would be for Earth to slow down in its orbit.

Satellites, Skylab etc only left orbit due to residual atmospheric drag. You can get orbital decay from Lenz' law drag in weird cases. But none of them apply to this.

Note that you could contrive to measure the apparent diameter of the Sun, and compare it to old books that They® haven't 'gotten to yet'. If it's getting bigger than it should be for this time of the year, there you go.

The scientists that are investigating this are remaining silent, obviously some kind of cover-up, but you can read about the basic physics of this possibility by googling "earth spiraling towards sun".

So how do you explain the fact that the climate has heated up like this many times before in the past? Or is that all made up too so that people don't panic.

BTW, I took your suggestion and found NOTHING about it, except something said by someone on a message board.

[edit on 4/21/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Prokurator
The scientists that are investigating this are remaining silent, obviously some kind of cover-up, but you can read about the basic physics of this possibility by googling "earth spiraling towards sun".

The only physics you'd get from a site that advocates that possibility would be fantasy physics.

Instead, why not google for "orbital mechanics" and read the truth? Grant you, you'll probably need to learn trig and algebra to actually work out the problems, but it's more useful than doing sudoku.

Perhaps we would get fantasy physics, since orbital mechanics, is in fact based on the presumption that the earth's orbit is stable. That does not mean that it is right. But of course we would settle the question simply Mr. Tom Bedlam by measuring the diameter of the sun as you suggested.

Well considering that the Earth has been in this orbit for millions of years I'd say it's fairly stable.

Originally posted by Prokurator
Perhaps we would get fantasy physics, since orbital mechanics, is in fact based on the presumption that the earth's orbit is stable. That does not mean that it is right. But of course we would settle the question simply Mr. Tom Bedlam by measuring the diameter of the sun as you suggested.

Well, no it isn't, not at all. Orbital mechanics is based mainly on Newtonian and Keplerian laws and hold true for any celestial body, not just Earth, and would be as valid if Earth weren't here.

So saying their validity hinges on Earth's orbit being stable sort of ignores the facts.

Also, tons of observations over centuries, as well as a lot of practical results from various space programs proves that they are in fact valid.

Here's a nice site, a bit basic but it gives you a nice feel for it.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by Prokurator
Perhaps we would get fantasy physics, since orbital mechanics, is in fact based on the presumption that the earth's orbit is stable. That does not mean that it is right. But of course we would settle the question simply Mr. Tom Bedlam by measuring the diameter of the sun as you suggested.

Well, no it isn't, not at all. Orbital mechanics is based mainly on Newtonian and Keplerian laws and hold true for any celestial body, not just Earth, and would be as valid if Earth weren't here.

So saying their validity hinges on Earth's orbit being stable sort of ignores the facts.

Also, tons of observations over centuries, as well as a lot of practical results from various space programs proves that they are in fact valid.

Here's a nice site, a bit basic but it gives you a nice feel for it.

Ok, I grant you are right. However, that does not rule out the possibility that some human activities last century or so, such as tests of nuclear bombs or space travel may have slightly altered the earths orbit.

Originally posted by Prokurator
Ok, I grant you are right. However, that does not rule out the possibility that some human activities last century or so, such as tests of nuclear bombs or space travel may have slightly altered the earths orbit.

In what way would they do this? I mean, I understand that Hollywood occasionally pulls out the odd physics-incorrect plotline, Space 1999 comes to mind, but seriously, you have to decrease the orbital speed to "spiral in". That requires some sort of process that transforms kinetic energy into heat.

Now, atmospheric drag on a satellite does exactly that, the impact of the satellite on residual atmosphere (very low density, more of a thick vacuum) heats the atmosphere it's hitting, and heats the satellite. The energy comes from the satellite's kinetic energy, the satellite slows down, the orbit becomes closer. That's one way.

Another is to use a Lenz' law drag. They used this to provide a plot line twist in 2010 - the magnetic fields of Io and Jupiter were 'cut' by the conductive hull of Discovery, which transformed some of the kinetic energy of the craft into heat in the hull. You could do this on a satellite to provide a passive de-orbit capability by deploying a shorted loop of wire a few hundred meters in diameter, sort of like that tether experiment they tried on the Shuttle. You can get a lot of power that way...but it's subtracted from the kinetic energy of the satellite, and down you go.

And of course, you can use rocket thrust to oppose the direction of travel and that will also slow down the craft. That's how retro-rockets work on manned spacecraft.

But space travel and nuclear weapons couldn't possibly affect Earth's orbital speed.

Nuclear blasts... space flights.. oh my GOD you guys! this thread has given me the perfect way to STOP global warming!

quick, let's get to work building a bank of thrusters the size of Russia, so we can push ourselves further from the sun! that should buy us some time on this whole 'climate change' thing!

Actually we are very slowly moving away from the Sun, due to Earths tidal waves, which slows the Suns rotation and pushes the Earth away. But the biggest effect is the Suns gravitational pull getting weaker.
As the Sun produces energy it loses some of it's mass, due to the fusion reaction, thus it's gravitational pull is weakened.

But it's an extremely small amount, millionths of an inch a year or something.

The only way we would move closer to the sun was if it was gaining more mass, which is not going to happen.

I've heard the earth may spiral towards the sun during its red giant phase.

Which won't happen for 4.5 billion years... and we'd be doomed anyway from extreme heat. But I'm certain we'll have space travel perfected in 4.5 billion years... if we live that long. I don't know if humanity can last the next 200 years if we don't start changing things.

200 years ? i think we'll try 20 first, still aint sure if we'll make that, so if were getting further away form the sun, at a slow slow slow rate, doesnt that mean the eventully global warming will be our friend ?

Originally posted by Prokurator
Why is it that the very plausible explanation for global warming, namely that the earth is spiralling towards the sun is not being publicly discussed? Possibly, scientists that are measuring this possibility don't wanna provoke mass hysteria.

its fake untill you have any evidence.

Well if we are spiralling towards the sun then our very own moon is going quickstep towards the sun, at last count the Moon is moving 4cm away from the Earth per year.

When we do get closer to the sun will be when the sun is about to die and expands before imploding, we will not get closer to the Sun but the Sun will get closer to us, then we will be toast.

Oh and when the Moon gets far enough away then expect the Earths axis to alter, we will more than likely start to wobble as we rotate due to the fact the Earth will want to go upright again once the Moons gravitational pull is weak enough.

Wolfie_UK

[edit on 22/4/07 by Wolfie_UK]

First - our Sun is to become a Red Giant ( before becoming white dwarf and die ) - so big - that it can stretch to Jupiter and growing about a hundred thousand times brighter than its current luminosity.

New view of sun rise





"The Future of Our Sun" video

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 22-4-2007 by blue bird]

Earth will only spiral to the sun when there is a blackhole and the sun sucks up all of the planets due to the pressure that the blackhole creates.

Originally posted by Prokurator
Why is it that the very plausible explanation for global warming, namely that the earth is spiralling towards the sun is not being publicly discussed? Possibly, scientists that are measuring this possibility don't wanna provoke mass hysteria.

How about "scientists have noticed that the year isn't getting any shorter" instead?

If we were "spiraling toward the sun" then our year would be getting shorter ... and noticeably... by days. This would throw off the calculations of every sky watcher across the globe (amateur astronomers) and would knock the calculations of astronomical programs out of whack.

Astrologers everywhere would be the second group to notice and scream. While they're not scientists, they do want accurate calculations. Farmers and anyone who grows plants would notice fall arriving much more quickly.

...and so forth.