Objects up to 4 light years away, including the Centauries, are all effected by our Sun that was my point, not that they were in any way part of the system rather it is the vast influence of our local star as an example of considering the consequences of its removal. Further, it's not going to happen in any way in the real universe without destroying, atomizing the entire Solar system, making Earth's post-sun-removal survival time measured in mere minutes. Thanks simply put it is purely theoretical to "remove" a Sun. *Okay, to get absolutely accurate, given there is no such thing as simultaneity and when dealing with relative motions (especially non-linear, therefore non-inertial) it's important to understand that the determination of durations and distance are dependent on those relative motions, so of course this will have a slight influence on calculations, but it's not going to be a huge factor. Every object withing the solar system is dominated at that distance scale by the sun, by definition of being the "Solar system" - so without the sun, (If it magically disappeared) they will indeed be freed of the influence of the sun's gravity, but at respective times from the disappearance depending on how long it would take the "gravitational ripples" travelling at light speed* "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon - don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory"Įvery single object in the solar system (sans Sun) would be freed of the single, major space/time gravity well, within 4 light years.Objects at 4 light years away are not typically considered within the Solar System. In such a case, this would be about 8 minutes. The important feature is not that the sun disappears - therefore the how and why or whether it is feasible - (as well as other implicit consideration as to the various other effects and consequences of a huge primary body somehow being removed from existence) - but instead only the example of the fact that the gravitational influence (or lack thereof) would not be 'felt' by, say the Earth, for a duration equivalent to "gravitational waves" propagating at celerity. I've only ever seen or heard of modelling "the immediate disappearance of the sun" to highlight the 'speed of causality' in exemplifiying the most significant divergence in thinking and unerstanding between Newton's perspective of gravity and that of Liebnitz, Killing or Einstein etc. The possible collisions and the chaos of the resulting re-aligning gravitational influences would threaten Earth's theoretical existence however, this is also fantasy, because you can't DELETE a STAR! Third, even surviving the theoretical absence of the Sun, wouldn't the orbits of a Sunless system's planets and solar objects (those that survived the initial shock of the Sun's removal) get very funky, very fast? Remember, every single object in the solar system (sans Sun) would be freed of the single, major space/time gravity well, within 4 light years. It could go nova that would disappear it, but probably the entire solar system would be atomized. And, besides, what could possibly take out our Sun? Superman? oops, no he's dead, and a fantasy figure. Second, if the Sun were to have its existence ended, the consequences would be a solar system-wide catastrophe, including the certain immediate destruction of Earth. If that's what was done for the numbers then, they're fantasy figures. Interesting calculation, but you left out a tiny bit.įirst off, HOW the Sun disappears is critical if you just remove it and pretend that's all that happened, then it's just for sims, where you can "remove" an object in the real world (and I assume you were making real world calculations) that is very hard to do with even very small objects, never mind a star one million times the size of Earth.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |