If the sun stopped producing energy how long would we live?

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm not sure I follow you Vic.

When we "realize" that the sun is no longer producing energy, that 8 minutes 20 seconds has already elapsed and the LAST bit of energy the sun produced has just hit the earth.

So, in effect, we would have the sun's energy for 8 minutes, 20 seconds after it stopped producing energy, because the energy it had already produced would be still travelling to us...

right?

Correct.

At which point the earth would suddenly be surrounded by a very large amount of cold space (2 degrees Kelvin IIRC). The energy dissapation would be quite rapid. How rapid, I don't know. A big factor would be whether the sun and its gravity well was still there or not.

earth is surrounded by a vacuum. there will be no heat transfer, all heat on earth will stay on earth except for the slow process of radiating off. how do you think white dwarfs stay for such a long time? they're on just built up heat at that point, not even burning any fuel.

The earth is not in a total vacuum. There are still the occasional atom of hydrogen or other misc particle floating around. It's about as close as you can get to a total vacuum, though.

.00003 ppm^3 particles of crap wont do anything to transfer heat off the earth.

you're right, outer space isnt a true vacuum, but not in the way you think. there is something called spatial ether, but we have no idea how to quantify it. we're not even sure how it exists, but according to our rules of physics, no energy can transfer across a perfect vacuum, so there has to be something there.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm not sure I follow you Vic.

When we "realize" that the sun is no longer producing energy, that 8 minutes 20 seconds has already elapsed and the LAST bit of energy the sun produced has just hit the earth.

So, in effect, we would have the sun's energy for 8 minutes, 20 seconds after it stopped producing energy, because the energy it had already produced would be still travelling to us...

right?

Correct.

At which point the earth would suddenly be surrounded by a very large amount of cold space (2 degrees Kelvin IIRC). The energy dissapation would be quite rapid. How rapid, I don't know. A big factor would be whether the sun and its gravity well was still there or not.

earth is surrounded by a vacuum. there will be no heat transfer, all heat on earth will stay on earth except for the slow process of radiating off. how do you think white dwarfs stay for such a long time? they're on just built up heat at that point, not even burning any fuel.

What do you think radiation is?

idiot... do you know what the word EXCEPT means?

it means i am noting an exception to my rule...

jeez...

You're comparing a white dwarf's thermal properties to the earth, and I'm the idiot?

 

[aircooled]

We'd loose oxygen as soon as all the plant life dies, so not long.

 

[NickE]

Originally posted by: Walleye

anyway, heat stays built up in the atmosphere for a long time to come. some of the sun's energy bounces off, i have no real idea how much actually heats the earth, and how much of that constant sustained energy is responsible for stemming off the radiating away of heat.

i guess the pressing question is whether the sun is responsible for earth's core still being molten.

If you think about it, the Earth/Sun system is in equilibrium, so the total heat input from the Sun must balance the heat losses through radiation, otherwise the Earth and its atmosphere would be heating or cooling continously and we'd have fried or frozen long ago - if we'd ever evolved in the first place, which of course we wouldn't.

It's tidal forces and electromagnetic generation through convection that keeps the core molten - the heat from the sun never reaches anywhere near the core.

 

[Eli]

Uhh....

All you people saying that it would be like *snaps fingers* frozen solid..

wtf are you smoking?

The Earth has a lot of heat stored up, mostly in the waters. We would not turn into a frigid ice ball over night.

Surely there is some computer model based on this scenario?

I'd give the masses about 6 months. Beyond a year, most major ecosystems will have collapsed, and the Earth would be getting quite chilly, I imagine.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: aircooled
We'd loose oxygen as soon as all the plant life dies, so not long.

We wouldn't loose oxygen totally. The amount of breathable oxygen in th atmosphere could sustain life for a while (seriously, there's a lot of it).

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm not sure I follow you Vic.

When we "realize" that the sun is no longer producing energy, that 8 minutes 20 seconds has already elapsed and the LAST bit of energy the sun produced has just hit the earth.

So, in effect, we would have the sun's energy for 8 minutes, 20 seconds after it stopped producing energy, because the energy it had already produced would be still travelling to us...

right?

Correct.

At which point the earth would suddenly be surrounded by a very large amount of cold space (2 degrees Kelvin IIRC). The energy dissapation would be quite rapid. How rapid, I don't know. A big factor would be whether the sun and its gravity well was still there or not.

earth is surrounded by a vacuum. there will be no heat transfer, all heat on earth will stay on earth except for the slow process of radiating off. how do you think white dwarfs stay for such a long time? they're on just built up heat at that point, not even burning any fuel.

What do you think radiation is?

idiot... do you know what the word EXCEPT means?

it means i am noting an exception to my rule...

jeez...

You're comparing a white dwarf's thermal properties to the earth, and I'm the idiot?

i'm saying it takes a long time for heat to dissipate, fool. the white dwarf example was just the easiest one for one of your limited intellect to understand.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm not sure I follow you Vic.

When we "realize" that the sun is no longer producing energy, that 8 minutes 20 seconds has already elapsed and the LAST bit of energy the sun produced has just hit the earth.

So, in effect, we would have the sun's energy for 8 minutes, 20 seconds after it stopped producing energy, because the energy it had already produced would be still travelling to us...

right?

Correct.

At which point the earth would suddenly be surrounded by a very large amount of cold space (2 degrees Kelvin IIRC). The energy dissapation would be quite rapid. How rapid, I don't know. A big factor would be whether the sun and its gravity well was still there or not.

earth is surrounded by a vacuum. there will be no heat transfer, all heat on earth will stay on earth except for the slow process of radiating off. how do you think white dwarfs stay for such a long time? they're on just built up heat at that point, not even burning any fuel.

The earth is not in a total vacuum. There are still the occasional atom of hydrogen or other misc particle floating around. It's about as close as you can get to a total vacuum, though.

.00003 ppm^3 particles of crap wont do anything to transfer heat off the earth.

you're right, outer space isnt a true vacuum, but not in the way you think. there is something called spatial ether, but we have no idea how to quantify it. we're not even sure how it exists, but according to our rules of physics, no energy can transfer across a perfect vacuum, so there has to be something there.

Wow. You need to read up a bit more methinks.

Descartes, ironically enough, was the first to propose that such an ether (at that time, he called it the plenum) existed, but it was Newton who proposed that light was corpuscular in nature and thus required a rigid medium to propagate; that's the ether. Faraday was then the man who proposed that light propagated by way of fields thus negating the need for such a rigid body, but it wasn't until Maxwell's work on electromagnetism and the realization of 'c' that the idea of an ether was mostly considered superfluous. The idea that 'c' is in vacuo implies that no rigid body is required, and so to say that no energy can transfer across a perfect vacuum takes us back a few decades.

 

[NickE]

To those having the 'enlightened' discussion above that radiation from the Earth wouldn't be significant as we're surrounded by vacuum, how the hell do you think the energy from the Sun reaches us in the first place? Maybe it's carried by the sunshine pixies?

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: NickE

Originally posted by: Walleye

anyway, heat stays built up in the atmosphere for a long time to come. some of the sun's energy bounces off, i have no real idea how much actually heats the earth, and how much of that constant sustained energy is responsible for stemming off the radiating away of heat.

i guess the pressing question is whether the sun is responsible for earth's core still being molten.

If you think about it, the Earth/Sun system is in equilibrium, so the total heat input from the Sun must balance the heat losses through radiation, otherwise the Earth and its atmosphere would be heating or cooling continously and we'd have fried or frozen long ago - if we'd ever evolved in the first place, which of course we wouldn't.

It's tidal forces and electromagnetic generation through convection that keeps the core molten - the heat from the sun never reaches anywhere near the core.

well, what i was referring to, is that the sun keeps the blanket surrounding the core warm, so that the core never has to lose temperature to heat up the blanket.

think of it as wearing a parka in summer.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm not sure I follow you Vic.

When we "realize" that the sun is no longer producing energy, that 8 minutes 20 seconds has already elapsed and the LAST bit of energy the sun produced has just hit the earth.

So, in effect, we would have the sun's energy for 8 minutes, 20 seconds after it stopped producing energy, because the energy it had already produced would be still travelling to us...

right?

Correct.

At which point the earth would suddenly be surrounded by a very large amount of cold space (2 degrees Kelvin IIRC). The energy dissapation would be quite rapid. How rapid, I don't know. A big factor would be whether the sun and its gravity well was still there or not.

earth is surrounded by a vacuum. there will be no heat transfer, all heat on earth will stay on earth except for the slow process of radiating off. how do you think white dwarfs stay for such a long time? they're on just built up heat at that point, not even burning any fuel.

What do you think radiation is?

idiot... do you know what the word EXCEPT means?

it means i am noting an exception to my rule...

jeez...

You're comparing a white dwarf's thermal properties to the earth, and I'm the idiot?

i'm saying it takes a long time for heat to dissipate, fool. the white dwarf example was just the easiest one for one of your limited intellect to understand.

It's great to see someone of such intellect resort to ad hominem attacks. That really says a lot of your statements.

 

Why do you people think all of the energy stored in earth, would be nullified in a few seconds?

Realistically, it would take about a month to get cold to the point where we could not survive.

 

[Ryan]

Also, have any of you ever lived in an area where there's severe radiational cooling? Take dry deserts for instance - they can be upwards of 100 degree in sunlight, but at night the temperature drops below freezing. On a clear and dry night almost aynwhere this can happen (but usually less severe). Here it can be in the 60's at day, and freezing at night. Imagine that happening to many areas around the world, it'd get VERY cold very fast.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: DescartesWow. You need to read up a bit more methinks.

Descartes, ironically enough, was the first to propose that such an ether (at that time, he called it the plenum) existed, but it was Newton who proposed that light was corpuscular in nature and thus required a rigid medium to propagate; that's the ether. Faraday was then the man who proposed that light propagated by way of fields thus negating the need for such a rigid body, but it wasn't until Maxwell's work on electromagnetism and the realization of 'c' that the idea of an ether was mostly considered superfluous. The idea that 'c' is in vacuo implies that no rigid body is required, and so to say that no energy can transfer across a perfect vacuum takes us back a few decades.

ether is not a rigid body, that's what i was saying in that we have no method of quanticizing it. it's impossible, we dont know how it works, etc etc.

 

[Eli]

I think the first main concern would be the temperatures.

I can imagine the air temperatures falling fast. That, coupled with no sun, would basically wipe out plants.. the food chain would collapse.

Fortunately, we would still be able to generate energy, grow (a limited number of) plants, animals.. so food would still be available, if not very hard to come by/expensive.

I think we could sustain at least small pockets until the atmosphere became inhospitable.

But we would just be prolonging the enevitable. Everybody would perish eventually.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: NickE
To those having the 'enlightened' discussion above that radiation from the Earth wouldn't be significant as we're surrounded by vacuum, how the hell do you think the energy from the Sun reaches us in the first place? Maybe it's carried by the sunshine pixies?

the sun is millions of times larger than us, and is thousands of times hotter. of course, it's gonna radiate out much much more energy than us.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Also, have any of you ever lived in an area where there's severe radiational cooling? Take dry deserts for instance - they can be upwards of 100 degree in sunlight, but at night the temperature drops below freezing. On a clear and dry night almost aynwhere this can happen (but usually less severe). Here it can be in the 60's at day, and freezing at night. Imagine that happening to many areas around the world, it'd get VERY cold very fast.

that's mostly because of no water to store the heat. in more tropical environments, or even in snow covered environments, water stores and regulates heat.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: rbloedowWhen temperature drop near absolute zero, how will anything function? Currently, we have no buildings that would be able to insulate any heat at that temperature, and you'd pretty much freeze into a solid human the second your body is even slightly exposed to those kinds of temperatures. Not only that, but oil would be come a solid, and any way of producing energy would be impossible.

Any matter is an insulator... air, soil, whatever. Insulation isn't too much of a problem as long as you have an energy source to produce heat.

It'd be fairly simple for ppl to survive in an airtight underground bunker as long as they had a lot of fuel for a generator. Of course, you'd need a good system for recompressing your waste gases since our atmosphere would freeze into a solid eventually. Heck, a giant bunsen burner running off hyrdogen would prolly be the best thing.

And we definitely have buildings that can insulate well enough to protect ppl from near-absolute-zero temperatures. Heck, the space shuttle and the ISS are well enough insulated for the incredibly low temps they face in Earth's shadow.

Anyway, my estimate of 6-12 months for the general population was way off, though I'm sure big-wig government types with their own bunkers, fuel, and food could live a couple years. EDIT: That is, if they had airtight bunkers with giant hydrogen-combusting heaters and good insulation.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: DescartesWow. You need to read up a bit more methinks.

Descartes, ironically enough, was the first to propose that such an ether (at that time, he called it the plenum) existed, but it was Newton who proposed that light was corpuscular in nature and thus required a rigid medium to propagate; that's the ether. Faraday was then the man who proposed that light propagated by way of fields thus negating the need for such a rigid body, but it wasn't until Maxwell's work on electromagnetism and the realization of 'c' that the idea of an ether was mostly considered superfluous. The idea that 'c' is in vacuo implies that no rigid body is required, and so to say that no energy can transfer across a perfect vacuum takes us back a few decades.

ether is not a rigid body, that's what i was saying in that we have no method of quanticizing it. it's impossible, we dont know how it works, etc etc.

The ether would absolutely have to be rigid in order for 'c' to be 3x10^8 m/s! The medium would also have to be supple enough that the celestial bodies move around unimpeded. Also note that many, many tests have been performed pre-Maxwell to determine the speed of light by using the ether as the ultimate body of rest. As you've said, yes, we haven't quantified any such medium, and thus to say it exists is moot.

For an analogy, consider how much faster a compression wave propagates through steel. It's very much a mechanical wave and thus can't propagate in vacuo, but we're talking fractions of 'c'.

Anyway...

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: Descartes

It's great to see someone of such intellect resort to ad hominem attacks. That really says a lot of your statements.

if you had understood why i used it (cause i spelled it quite clearly for you) then maybe you wouldnt have questioned it, and i wouldnt have gotten disgusted by your questioning. anyways, fine, let's hear why the heating and cooling properties of a white dwarf are so much different than of earth? in this scenario, both are dealing with only a finite amount of heat energy for the rest of their existence. tell me why the analogy is unfitting here?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Eli
I think the first main concern would be the temperatures.

I can imagine the air temperatures falling fast. That, coupled with no sun, would basically wipe out plants.. the food chain would collapse.

Fortunately, we would still be able to generate energy, grow (a limited number of) plants, animals.. so food would still be available, if not very hard to come by/expensive.

I think we could sustain at least small pockets until the atmosphere became inhospitable.

But we would just be prolonging the enevitable. Everybody would perish eventually.

With sufficient planning I think life could be sustainable for a relatively small number of people (less than 100,000).

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: moonshinemadness
If the sun died out, we wouldnt know about it for 30 years would we? Dues to the distance? Am i wrong?

Are you kidding? What do they teach our children in grade school these days?!?!!

Dude, i know a guy who doesn't believe the Earth is round because why wouldn't people on the otherside of the planet just 'fall off'. I'm not kidding.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Eli
I think the first main concern would be the temperatures.

I can imagine the air temperatures falling fast. That, coupled with no sun, would basically wipe out plants.. the food chain would collapse.

Fortunately, we would still be able to generate energy, grow (a limited number of) plants, animals.. so food would still be available, if not very hard to come by/expensive.

I think we could sustain at least small pockets until the atmosphere became inhospitable.

But we would just be prolonging the enevitable. Everybody would perish eventually.

With sufficient planning I think life could be sustainable for a relatively small number of people (less than 100,000).

Yes, perhaps. It would take some serious planning and building though.

You would need an entire planet's ecosystem(at least enough to sustain itself) in a rather large biosphere..

 

[Medellon]

[/quote]I don't think your realizing how cold it will get. There's a HUGE difference between Antarctica and a few degree from absolute zero. Seriously, machines would stop working, and no amount of insulation coud keep you from freezing. As stated above, matter almost stops moving at the temperature, how do you think we would retrieve food and supplies from the surface of the earth? Also, you're going to have to bury yourself very deep into the earth, which would be nearly impossible.[/quote]

It's not impossible! Didn't you see the movieThe Core?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Descartes
The distance from the sun to the earth is considered a single astronomical unit, and it would take the last bit of light from the sun about 8 seconds to reach us. This is of course assuming that the sun simply "burn out" and didn't follow the empirical stellar evolution of a white dwarf. Assuming that, the ambient temperature would be little more than absolute zero, Kelvin; roughly the same temperature as observed in the cosmic microwave background. Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics says heat transfers spontaneously from a hot to a cold medium, I would *think* the thermal capacity of the earth would be high enough to sustain an existence for a couple of seconds? It can be quantitatively measured, but I don't know what the respective values.

I'm with him.

I'm not... for starters, the speed of light is 3x10^8 meters per second... it would take approximately 490-500 seconds (8 minutes, not seconds) to reach the earth.

Most people on earth would still be alive after a week or so, then they'd begin to die off. Most of the rest of what happens would depend highly on how society breaks down. There's no reason to believe that some populations couldn't survive indefinitely. But they'd be very sheltered, most likely heading underground as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the heat that the earth produces itself (radioactive decay within the earth) As far as food goes, the surface of the earth would basically be one giant freezer filled with all sorts of food (including frozen human, should the survivors get so desperate - which I doubt) But, with nuclear power and fossil fuels, we'd be able to keep warm enough to live, with enough electricity to power some well insulated "green houses."
Think about it... we have scientific bases on Antartica where the sun already *IS* out for 6 months of the year.

edit: upon some reconsideration, I'm only worried about the atmosphere. Would the earth radiate enough heat to keep the atmosphere somewhat intact?

Um, there's a difference between Antartica and deepspace (which is what we would essentially be)... about 300 degrees or so IIRC. It would be so cold that the air would literally be frozen, and the sky would plummet to the earth. About 3 degrees colder, and everything would stop, including atoms.