'Tiny chance' of planet collision

[Admiral Danger]

Astronomers calculate there is a tiny chance that Mars or Venus could collide with Earth - though it would not happen for at least a billion years.

...Now, the team has shown how in a small proportion of cases these fluctuations can grow until after several million years, the orbits of the inner planets begin to overlap.

Read more...

I think that this blows a huge hole in the "man made" global warming theory. because if the earth's orbit fluctuates then sometimes it will get closer to the sun making it warmer.

but i still dont think that the orbits will overlap. the earth will be long gone before it could happen in my opinion.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Dr Alien

[Cancerien]

Uh... Was anybody really worried about this?

[sepulchrave]

I think that this blows a huge hole in the "man made" global warming theory. because if the earth's orbit fluctuates then sometimes it will get closer to the sun making it warmer.

Not really. If the earth's orbit fluctuates you will (or astronomers will) notice the sun getting larger/smaller, notice the change in the year, etc.

These fluctuations must be slow and gradual. So I guess it COULD account for historical ice-ages / warm periods, but it can't really account for the drastic changes in weather over the last 50 years.

Solar activity fluctuations can occur much more rapidly than orbital fluctuations - and are a much more reasonable culprit if you suspect global warming is not `man-made'.

In my opinion, anyway.

[Rare and Unusual Human Creature]

"Astronomers calculate there is a tiny chance that Mars or Venus could collide with Earth -"

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

" though it would not happen for at least a billion years"

Oh. Nevermind.

[danielost]

Not really. If the earth's orbit fluctuates you will (or astronomers will) notice the sun getting larger/smaller, notice the change in the year, etc.

These fluctuations must be slow and gradual. So I guess it COULD account for historical ice-ages / warm periods, but it can't really account for the drastic changes in weather over the last 50 years.

Solar activity fluctuations can occur much more rapidly than orbital fluctuations - and are a much more reasonable culprit if you suspect global warming is not `man-made'.

In my opinion, anyway.

No keeping track of the weather over the last 50 years does that.

Before the 20th century we didn't really keep track of the weather like we do now. Ie no records or few.

[danielost]

Not really. If the earth's orbit fluctuates you will (or astronomers will) notice the sun getting larger/smaller, notice the change in the year, etc.

These fluctuations must be slow and gradual. So I guess it COULD account for historical ice-ages / warm periods, but it can't really account for the drastic changes in weather over the last 50 years.

Solar activity fluctuations can occur much more rapidly than orbital fluctuations - and are a much more reasonable culprit if you suspect global warming is not `man-made'.

In my opinion, anyway.

we are getting ready to start heading for solar maximus again 11 year cycle. we are still at the top of a 70 year cycle as well. The last solar maximus was 2000, I believe that the 70 year cycle hit max in 2001. Since solar maximus didn't start down for 3 years this time both were at max at the same time.

[sepulchrave]

No keeping track of the weather over the last 50 years does that.

Before the 20th century we didn't really keep track of the weather like we do now. Ie no records or few.

Fair point.

But since people have been fascinated with the sun - since basically forever - I think that someone (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc.) would have noticed the sun getting larger or smaller by any significant amount.

I could be wrong though, I'm not sure how large an orbital fluctuation would have to be to introduce climate change.

[danielost]

Fair point.

But since people have been fascinated with the sun - since basically forever - I think that someone (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc.) would have noticed the sun getting larger or smaller by any significant amount.

I could be wrong though, I'm not sure how large an orbital fluctuation would have to be to introduce climate change.

a couple of inches to feet

[jagertee]

yay our time is ending sooner or later xD

[Cherus]

Im not holding my breath...

[Lady Amethyst]

Can they not make a film about this?

[greggK]

Ha ha haha lololol

[sepulchrave]

a couple of inches to feet

In change of orbital distance to create climate change? I don't believe that.

I calculate if the earth moved 1 km closer to the sun, the entire surface of the earth would receive an additional 24 GW of power. In contrast, the state of New York in 1997 (or maybe 2001) used 147 GW.

In fact the earth would have to move about 675 km closer to the sun for the additional power to be equivalent to that used by all of human society (about 16 TW)... although the sun would increase in radius by less then 0.0005%, so I guess people probably wouldn't notice.

[danielost]

In change of orbital distance to create climate change? I don't believe that.

I calculate if the earth moved 1 km closer to the sun, the entire surface of the earth would receive an additional 24 GW of power. In contrast, the state of New York in 1997 (or maybe 2001) used 147 GW.

In fact the earth would have to move about 675 km closer to the sun for the additional power to be equivalent to that used by all of human society (about 16 TW)... although the sun would increase in radius by less then 0.0005%, so I guess people probably wouldn't notice.

remember that would be per second per inch not per what ever they generate in ny

Edited June 12, 2009 by danielost

[sepulchrave]

remember that would be per second per inch not per what ever they generate in ny

No, power is power. Energy per unit time. The output of the sun is directly comparable to the usage of NY.

Actually, now that I look into it (which I probably should have done at the beginning), the Earth's orbit varies by by about five million km during the year.

So in conclusion: Forget everything I've said.

[behaviour???]

Thats billions of years and I dont think we would last for that many years

Thanks

B???

[greggK]

Watching the video on the collisions, one thing is the perturbations of the planets in their revolutions around the sun. That is how they discovered the outer planets, by their odd perturbations. They are getting us prepared for something. You know, probably next year or so or even 2012 mercury could collide with Venus because of an odd corner-turning perturbation that they failed to pick up because of the planet Nibiru . . .

[Admiral Danger]

You know, probably next year or so or even 2012 mercury could collide with Venus because of an odd corner-turning perturbation that they failed to pick up because of the planet Nibiru . . .

NOOO!!!! nirbiru does not exist, this sort of stuff it will never happen. if nibiru existed it wouldve clashed with one of the planets in the inner solar system already with proof that it has happened.

[greggK]

NOOO!!!! nirbiru does not exist, this sort of stuff it will never happen. if nibiru existed it wouldve clashed with one of the planets in the inner solar system already with proof that it has happened.

WHAT????!!! You don't mean to tell me you are another one of those people?

But, actually that could have happened. And that could have created our moon, you know; a little glancing blow and sent 'ol Nibiru wobbling off into the yonder just to smash into another rock that sent it off into another and it just started a chain reaction that created part of the asteroid belt and went on to create the Kuiper belt.

Edited June 12, 2009 by greggK

[danielost]

NOOO!!!! nirbiru does not exist, this sort of stuff it will never happen. if nibiru existed it wouldve clashed with one of the planets in the inner solar system already with proof that it has happened.

The only chance that the so called nirbiru planet to collide with another planet is if it is in the same plane more or less of said planet. like neptune and pluto. Those two planets cross paths but will never hit.

[Picturesque Orion]

I can't believe people on this very modernized world still believe in such things as Nibiru. After so much scientific history, so much mathematics, so many geniuses, and we still believe in things like Nibiru....things with no evidence, no factual base, just fairy tales.

I think it's something more of entertainment than actual interest.

Gregg, please read some reference books, instead of every fairy tale you find on the internet. It's not healthy, trust me, it's not.

[danielost]

I can't believe people on this very modernized world still believe in such things as Nibiru. After so much scientific history, so much mathematics, so many geniuses, and we still believe in things like Nibiru....things with no evidence, no factual base, just fairy tales.

I think it's something more of entertainment than actual interest.

Gregg, please read some reference books, instead of every fairy tale you find on the internet. It's not healthy, trust me, it's not.

The babylions may have mistaken a comet for a planet.

[Alienated Being]

Oh, well - we'll be long dead before that. The next generations will have technologies (by that time) to travel well beyond our solar system.

[MeteoricErod]

"Astronomers calculate there is a tiny chance that Mars or Venus could collide with Earth -"

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

" though it would not happen for at least a billion years"

Oh. Nevermind.

Hahahaha!!!! I was thinking the exact same thing!!! lol

Foolish me....

[thefinalfrontier]

Sorry to say that there is no such Planet called NIBIRU,, Its all one of Dr. Stichen and Jason Martels fantasy dreams,

All can read about the BS right here