The sun's gravity

Author
Discussion

TwigtheWonderkid

Original Poster:

43,553 posts

151 months

Sunday 22nd December 2013
quotequote all
OK, I want to know the answer to this, but it's probably a really daft question and everyone will think I'm a total buffoon, but to hell with it, here goes.

The sun's gravity holds all the planets in our solar system in orbit. Even Pluto, miles away, where a year is 288 Earth years long, is in orbit around the sun.

But the sun is burning at a ferocious rate constantly. I once heard (may not be true) that it burns 7 billion tonnes of fuel a second. Now I know it's big, but it must be losing mass all the time. Surely after 5 billion years or whatever it is that it's been going, it must have far less mass than when it was formed. So how come its gravitational force isn't reducing accordingly. How come all the planets don't start to drift away as the hold of the sun reduces. The planets aren't losing mass are they? The Earth weighs more or less what it weighed 4.7 billion years ago.

OK, I've asked it now. Feel free to humiliate me for being a moron.

Steffan

10,362 posts

229 months

Sunday 22nd December 2013
quotequote all
There are various prediction on the demise of the Sun. it will as you say eventually burn out. But in Human timescales too far away to concern us. Billions of years from what I remember but no doubt an expert will provide an exact answer shortly. In effect IMO more than 100 million years is not a timescale to concern humans.

Eric Mc

122,112 posts

266 months

Sunday 22nd December 2013
quotequote all
The sun still has most of the mass it started with. The energy of the sun derives from the conversion of that mass from hydrogen into helium. The actual mass lost in the process is not that much in comparison to the total mass.

In 5 billion years time, the sun will STILL have most of that mass.

Its problem is that most of its mass will by then have been converted and its nuclear core will,start to shut down. At this point, the still huge amount of mass will cause the core to collapse, triggering massive changes to the sun which will signal the end of life on earth.

Baring other unforeseen events, the sun should still retain its retinue of planets etc up until its demise.

TwigtheWonderkid

Original Poster:

43,553 posts

151 months

Sunday 22nd December 2013
quotequote all
Wow, that's pretty straightforward. Thanks.

Halmyre

11,244 posts

140 months

Sunday 22nd December 2013
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, I want to know the answer to this, but it's probably a really daft question and everyone will think I'm a total buffoon, but to hell with it, here goes.

The sun's gravity holds all the planets in our solar system in orbit. Even Pluto, miles away, where a year is 288 Earth years long, is in orbit around the sun.

But the sun is burning at a ferocious rate constantly. I once heard (may not be true) that it burns 7 billion tonnes of fuel a second. Now I know it's big, but it must be losing mass all the time. Surely after 5 billion years or whatever it is that it's been going, it must have far less mass than when it was formed. So how come its gravitational force isn't reducing accordingly. How come all the planets don't start to drift away as the hold of the sun reduces. The planets aren't losing mass are they? The Earth weighs more or less what it weighed 4.7 billion years ago.

OK, I've asked it now. Feel free to humiliate me for being a moron.
It's 'burning' Hydrogen and turning it into Helium, but since Helium weighs slightly less than four Hydrogen atoms, it's only this difference in mass that's being converted into energy. That's the power of mc^2!

gamefreaks

1,973 posts

188 months

Tuesday 24th December 2013
quotequote all
Doesn't the process continue fusing heavier and heavier elements until the fusion reactions yeild net negative energy. (Is takes more energy to fuse the elements than is released) and the process stops.

Eric Mc

122,112 posts

266 months

Tuesday 24th December 2013
quotequote all
Correct.

How much additional fusing can go in is down to the mass of the star. Since the sun is not that massive (by stellar standards) it will cease the fusing process at iron. It won't undergo a supernova phase - which is the point where all the other elements get created.

dodgyviper

1,197 posts

239 months

Tuesday 24th December 2013
quotequote all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

This is a good link which also details some of the main characters in the 1930s who were involved in the initial discoveries (or denial of them)

A salutary lesson in humbleness for those who refused to believe Chandraekhar's work.

Every scientist should look at this as a poignant lesson. Unfortunately, when it is said great scientists stand on the shoulders of the giants before them, some believe that they are the last of the giants and that they know everything.

John_S4x4

1,350 posts

258 months

Saturday 28th December 2013
quotequote all
"Assuming that the sun’s yearly mass loss (currently about one part in 100 trillion) remains small for the duration of its evolution to the red giant phase, Iorio calculates that Earth will move outward at about three millimeters a year, or only 0.0002 AU by the sun’s red giant phase. But at that point the sun will balloon up, in only a million years, to 1.2 AU in radius, thus vaporizing Earth." as from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=t...

I have always liked the grand idea of saving the Earth being engulfed by the Sun, by moving Earth to an outer orbit using Asteroids, as mentioned in the bottom paragraph in the link. Shame we would lose the moon and would have to move Mars out of the way first, though.

steve singh

3,995 posts

174 months

Tuesday 31st December 2013
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, I want to know the answer to this, but it's probably a really daft question and everyone will think I'm a total buffoon, but to hell with it, here goes.

The sun's gravity holds all the planets in our solar system in orbit. Even Pluto, miles away, where a year is 288 Earth years long, is in orbit around the sun.

But the sun is burning at a ferocious rate constantly. I once heard (may not be true) that it burns 7 billion tonnes of fuel a second. Now I know it's big, but it must be losing mass all the time. Surely after 5 billion years or whatever it is that it's been going, it must have far less mass than when it was formed. So how come its gravitational force isn't reducing accordingly. How come all the planets don't start to drift away as the hold of the sun reduces. The planets aren't losing mass are they? The Earth weighs more or less what it weighed 4.7 billion years ago.

OK, I've asked it now. Feel free to humiliate me for being a moron.
You sound like you're coming around to the notion of God hehe

Simpo Two

85,705 posts

266 months

Tuesday 31st December 2013
quotequote all
As in 'I can't understand this so there must be a God'?

TwigtheWonderkid

Original Poster:

43,553 posts

151 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
steve singh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, I want to know the answer to this, but it's probably a really daft question and everyone will think I'm a total buffoon, but to hell with it, here goes.

The sun's gravity holds all the planets in our solar system in orbit. Even Pluto, miles away, where a year is 288 Earth years long, is in orbit around the sun.

But the sun is burning at a ferocious rate constantly. I once heard (may not be true) that it burns 7 billion tonnes of fuel a second. Now I know it's big, but it must be losing mass all the time. Surely after 5 billion years or whatever it is that it's been going, it must have far less mass than when it was formed. So how come its gravitational force isn't reducing accordingly. How come all the planets don't start to drift away as the hold of the sun reduces. The planets aren't losing mass are they? The Earth weighs more or less what it weighed 4.7 billion years ago.

OK, I've asked it now. Feel free to humiliate me for being a moron.
You sound like you're coming around to the notion of God hehe
Yup, I didn't understand something, and now, thanks to it being explained by others who understood the science, I now understand it perfectly.

Praise the Lord! rolleyes

steve singh

3,995 posts

174 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
steve singh said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
OK, I want to know the answer to this, but it's probably a really daft question and everyone will think I'm a total buffoon, but to hell with it, here goes.

The sun's gravity holds all the planets in our solar system in orbit. Even Pluto, miles away, where a year is 288 Earth years long, is in orbit around the sun.

But the sun is burning at a ferocious rate constantly. I once heard (may not be true) that it burns 7 billion tonnes of fuel a second. Now I know it's big, but it must be losing mass all the time. Surely after 5 billion years or whatever it is that it's been going, it must have far less mass than when it was formed. So how come its gravitational force isn't reducing accordingly. How come all the planets don't start to drift away as the hold of the sun reduces. The planets aren't losing mass are they? The Earth weighs more or less what it weighed 4.7 billion years ago.

OK, I've asked it now. Feel free to humiliate me for being a moron.
You sound like you're coming around to the notion of God hehe
Yup, I didn't understand something, and now, thanks to it being explained by others who understood the science, I now understand it perfectly.

Praise the Lord! rolleyes
It was a joke...never mind - happy new year!

Terminator X

15,169 posts

205 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Isn't the Sun getting gradually hotter too so we have about 1bn years until it boils off all our water rather than 5bn until it goes super nova and takes out Earth?

TX.

Eric Mc

122,112 posts

266 months

Friday 3rd January 2014
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
Isn't the Sun getting gradually hotter too so we have about 1bn years until it boils off all our water rather than 5bn until it goes super nova and takes out Earth?

TX.
It may be getting hotter but it won't go Super Nova - it's too small.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

245 months

Friday 3rd January 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It may be getting hotter but it won't go Super Nova - it's too small.
Becoming a red giant with a radius about that of Mars' orbit will be painful enough.

Eric Mc

122,112 posts

266 months

Friday 3rd January 2014
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
It may be getting hotter but it won't go Super Nova - it's too small.
Becoming a red giant with a radius about that of Mars' orbit will be painful enough.
I don't think we'll be around to witness it anyway.

TwigtheWonderkid

Original Poster:

43,553 posts

151 months

Saturday 4th January 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
It may be getting hotter but it won't go Super Nova - it's too small.
Becoming a red giant with a radius about that of Mars' orbit will be painful enough.
I don't think we'll be around to witness it anyway.
Ooo, I dunno. I don't smoke and I like to think I keep myself in pretty good nick.

Eric Mc

122,112 posts

266 months

Saturday 4th January 2014
quotequote all
What's the point in denying yourself the pleasures of life though if you end up being blitzed when the sun becomes a red giant anyway?

"Eat, drink and be merry, for in 4.5 billion years we die" is my motto.