0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.
I'll answer the original question since the rest is nonsense. The planet goes through cycles. We cannot avoid that. A cycle can be modified by other inputs. These include volcanic eruptions for instance. Our role is becoming more apparent as time goes on. We are turning a gradual cycle that is easy to adapt to into something a lot less manageable. I personally don't think we know what it is we are doing exactly to cause this. However it is likely to not be just output of CO2.
Man made?Millions of years of trees burnt in 100 years. Cough cough...5 gallon a car times billion cars times 52 weeks times many years. 13,000,000,000,000 gallons seems unlucky to me.Now, 4 * PI * 6,000 wide earth * 20 miles high atmosphere is something like 1.5 million miles square.13,000,000,000,000 / 1.5 million = 8,666,666.666666667 gallons of petrol per square mile of atmosphere.Which is 3.85 gallons per square meter.This can't be true, I'm going over the maths...
According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htmCoal extracted 326x 10to (9) or 326000000000 tonnes, 21gigajoules of energy per tonne =Oil extracted 1110x 10 to (9) or 1110000000000 barrells 1 barrel=139 kg = 154x10(9) tonnes 42 giga joules a tonne =Gas extracted 3285 x 10 to (12) or 3285000000000000cubic feet = 3.63kg cubic foot 11.9x 10 (12) tonnes of gasI am not sure about the gas calculation,seems a littlehigh i think doubling the oil would be more prudent and still an overestimate. So 300 tonnes of oil and gas.Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2 per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water. And 19x10 (21) joules of energy or 19 zetta jouless of energy released between oil coal and gas.
But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio. By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed. There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy . =Δ
Quote from: Thebox on 23/09/2017 22:29:04But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio. By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed. There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy . =Δ There is the problem of the energy capture from the sun, without plants light would have impacted and eithe warmed the planet or would have been reflected in a process as you allude to, light in planet moves one way, light out, planet moves the other. With fossil fuels it is no longer just heat to be lost in a even way, now the energy can de directed as kinetic energy, as in spacecraft engines, an action in one direction has an equal and opposite. what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?
The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.
Quote from: alancalverd on 23/09/2017 23:10:14The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.And when the plant where growing did they lower the lemperature, increace the mass, affect the balance gravitationally of the planet by capturing extra energy when there side of the earth faced rhe sun and storing it, and not allowing it to escape as heat and light. Over the years that must have built up.
but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong
But the equal and oposite reaction is the dissipation of the energy as heat. But as that mass moves away the earth does move , if you have a rocket hovering SPECIFICALLY OVER ONE PLACE WITH NO ACCELERATION it does not force opposite no matter how long it hovers and how much energy it uses, due to gravitation providing the reason for the fuel use initially as in an equal system the gravitatinal attraction is balanced by the opposite thrust and generates heat, but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it,
But it still stands, spacecraft in space gain there impetus through the equal and opposite without anything to thrust upon, otherwise we would never got above the atmosphere or had directional capability in space, and taking off from the moon would be very diffivult with its thin atmosphere.
If gravitational energy action happens repetedly over decades, always in the equal and opposite, taking off about noon, landing about midnight, no matter how many hours duration the flight was, would this alter the distance of the earth from the sun ?. I know about gravitational centres, and the theory being that the earth is moved away from the sun at noon, orbits the gravitational centre and returns to the same position at midnight as the craft lands, as you say the earth split in two around a gravittional centre, and then glued back to gether in the same place, however as with a plane one body in consuming energy staying aloft and undergoing acceleration around the gravitational centre, during a specific orentation to a third body (the sun), would the gravitational centre alter in relation to the sun if the aircraft rocket behaveid in a certain way? Cars accelerate across the surface by day far more than by night ? And rest mass is greater than inertial mass, isnt it ?