Science Forums

# How Long Do We Really Have Left Before We Have To Evacuate Earth?

## Recommended Posts

Learning science, the life expectancy of the sun is always highlighted as when the earth will become uninhabitable if natural disaster doesn't take its toll which inevitably it will do.

Regardless, has it ever been considered the mass of the earth is growing slowly as vegetation grows and dies repeatedly. Surely this change will eventually alter the orbit of moon and cause catastrophic damage if no intervention is made. (Nuking the moon to destruction, a remake spin off of armageddon with Bruce Willis comes to mind).

Its something I thought about but never heard any other opinions, calculating rate of diameter growth can be found using archaeological data depths and how many years would it take if ever for the earth to be large enough to shift the moon.

If the earth was to gain 1mm of earth each year, in just 1.6 million years the earth will have gained a mile of earth.

55 million years ago was the Jurassic period and these fossils are found 750m deep now.

750,000mm / 55,000,000 = 0.013mm per year. Not considering the additional growth it will take 100 million years to gain a mile of earth. This would be my guess of how much extra mass it would take to shift the moons orbit, roughly 2000 cubic miles of gained earth.

The moon has a volume of roughly 5 billion cubic miles of which 2000 cubic miles is only a 10 millionth of the moons volume. But being such a delicate orbit I can't imagine much more of a change would not effect its trajectory.

But in short 100 million years on this estimate is a lot less time than the 5 billion years highted that the sun has left before it goes super nova.

Anyone who know anything about orbital physics that wants to modify my estimates here?

Edited by fuzi2020
##### Share on other sites

Learning science, the life expectancy of the sun is always highlighted as when the earth will become uninhabitable if natural disaster doesn't take its toll which inevitably it will do.

Regardless, has it ever been considered the mass of the earth is growing slowly as vegetation grows and dies repeatedly. Surely this change will eventually alter the orbit of moon and cause catastrophic damage if no intervention is made. (Nuking the moon to destruction, a remake spin off of armageddon with Bruce Willis comes to mind).

Its something I thought about but never heard any other opinions, calculating rate of diameter growth can be found using archaeological data depths and how many years would it take if ever for the earth to be large enough to shift the moon.

If the earth was to gain 1mm of earth each year, in just 1.6 million years the earth will have gained a mile of earth.

55 million years ago was the Jurassic period and these fossils are found 750m deep now.

750,000mm / 55,000,000 = 0.013mm per year. Not considering the additional growth it will take 100 million years to gain a mile of earth. This would be my guess of how much extra mass it would take to shift the moons orbit, roughly 2000 cubic miles of gained earth.

The moon has a volume of roughly 5 billion cubic miles of which 2000 cubic miles is only a 10 millionth of the moons volume. But being such a delicate orbit I can't imagine much more of a change would not effect its trajectory.

But in short 100 million years on this estimate is a lot less time than the 5 billion years highted that the sun has left before it goes super nova.

Anyone who know anything about orbital physics that wants to modify my estimates here?

First off fuzi, I would suggest that the earth would need to gain weight as opposed to size. And secondly, you may want to consider posting this in the Lounge section in order to get full throated replies to your theories.

And thirdly, welcome to the forum, you're going to fit in very nicely!

##### Share on other sites

Hi montgomery, firstly thanks for responding it's always good to see people with an interest in similar things to myself. I would comment on your detail of size vs weight. Although yes I've stated the size of earth is increasing this is also referring to mass the mass of the earth (the amount of matter).

Plants generate growth primarily from CO2 and sunlight meaning the majority of the plant material grown is not obtained from the energy and minerals in the soil. These mealy aid the process in helping the plant to grow.

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

##### Share on other sites

Hi montgomery, firstly thanks for responding it's always good to see people with an interest in similar things to myself. I would comment on your detail of size vs weight. Although yes I've stated the size of earth is increasing this is also referring to mass the mass of the earth (the amount of matter).

Plants generate growth primarily from CO2 and sunlight meaning the majority of the plant material grown is not obtained from the energy and minerals in the soil. These mealy aid the process in helping the plant to grow.

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

I think that the more popular opinion is that the earth is losing weight but this is a train that can be rode on here until if falls off the rails!

##### Share on other sites

Then if this is the case the moon will be leaving its orbit some day which should be addressed. What reasoning has been made that is not published on earths mass reducing? I fail to see where the mass would be moving to, particles join and separate in reactions and if transferred to the atmosphere from reactions here on earth they still exert a gravitional pull as gas still holds mass.

Edited by fuzi2020
##### Share on other sites

I'm less concerned right now on the possibility of the moon crashing into the earth or it leaving us by flying off into space, than I'm concerned with the way you run two sentences into one.

Not to be overly critical of your grammar but just to remark on that being a not uncommon behaviour on this forum. It could be the result of an over-active mind that is so intelligent that there is an inability to process two different thoughts separately. Therefore in this example you are making a statement and then going on to asking a question at the same time.

And so to answer your question, there are several theories on both the earth losing mass or gaining mass that have been at least published on the web. I think those theories haven't gained much attention because the moon's reaction to earth's mass changing is not of immediate concern. I would say that it won't happen before the sun burns out.

However, do notice that we have several discussions going on here on the possibility of the moon being hollow. You may be interested in commenting on that theory?

##### Share on other sites

Then if this is the case the moon will be leaving its orbit some day which should be addressed, what reasoning has been made that is not published on earths mass reducing? I fail to see where the mass would be moving to, particles join and separate in reactions and if transferred to the atmosphere from reactions here on earth they still exert a gravitional pull as gas still holds mass.

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

after a quick google to quench my curiosity from Wikipedia:"Earth's mass is variable, subject to both gain and loss due to the accretion of in-falling material, including micrometeorites and cosmic dust and the loss of hydrogen and helium gas, respectively. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (5.4×104 long tons) per year."

Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

##### Share on other sites

First off fuzi, I would suggest that the earth would need to gain weight as opposed to size. And secondly, you may want to consider posting this in the Lounge section in order to get full throated replies to your theories.

And thirdly, welcome to the forum, you're going to fit in very nicely!

I am trying to figure out who made you moderator that you keep on telling people where they should post their threads?

Edited by Thoth101
##### Share on other sites

I am trying to figure out who made you moderator that you keep on telling people where they should post their threads?

Don't waste your time on that, we have a topic that involves the moon and so it's an opportunity to explain why you know the moon is hollow. Did you know it rings like a bell when it's whacked with something?

Does your David ever get to telling you what's living underground in the moon?

##### Share on other sites

Learning science, the life expectancy of the sun is always highlighted as when the earth will become uninhabitable if natural disaster doesn't take its toll which inevitably it will do.

Regardless, has it ever been considered the mass of the earth is growing slowly as vegetation grows and dies repeatedly....

...

Anyone who know anything about orbital physics that wants to modify my estimates here?

Vegetation growth doesn't add to the size of earth.

Yes; Plants grow by taking CO2 from the atmosphere, and with some molecular machinery combining it with H2O to make long and complex molecules like C6H10O5.

NO; That doesn't "Add" anything to the earth, it's taking 6 lego bricks from a few blobs and 15 lego bricks from other blobs and mushing them together into a 21-brick blob while leaving a bunch a 2-brick O2 blobs free floating.

-There's nothing added mass-wise.

##### Share on other sites

Vegetation growth doesn't add to the size of earth.

Yes; Plants grow by taking CO2 from the atmosphere, and with some molecular machinery combining it with H2O to make long and complex molecules like C6H10O5.

NO; That doesn't "Add" anything to the earth, it's taking 6 lego bricks from a few blobs and 15 lego bricks from other blobs and mushing them together into a 21-brick blob while leaving a bunch a 2-brick O2 blobs free floating.

-There's nothing added mass-wise.

There would be mass added due to the conversion of energy. This is normally ignored in first year chemistry courses but later on you learn that a very small amount of energy does get converted to mass - or at least this is what I recall from a very long time ago.

Although it is a small amount, it might be relevant given the size of the earth... even a increase in mass by 0.00001 would be a lot.

But I am no expert... just throwing in my 0.00002 cents...

##### Share on other sites

I've worked on this, we now have approximately a two billion life span due to the missing sunspots. Unless they have been detected since but nitheard anything.

Edited by Dubbelosix
##### Share on other sites

I figure about three weeks

##### Share on other sites

Maybe the question is how long will it take us to work out the "how to"s and be ready?  We have a terrible habit of waiting until something drastic does happen.  Then we race around like mad - locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen.

##### Share on other sites

I see that an idea here is will the mass of the earth be able to manipulate the moon, considering the masses of planetary bodies interacting. That is a hard one to think about. A cool idea would be to see in general how much weight is really added per year. I could think of plants and animal population averages, astroids, too. I guess radioactive decay is always occurring too, right? That would mean that it is an always changing mass measurement, because of atomic change from neutron decay. Even global warming and ocean evaporation, and this escaping into space, or lingering as weather.

In considering that calculation you made, that is interesting. I see you are relating that specifically to the amount of vegetation. I am not exactly sure how that works out, but I would also consider some ideas, such as whether the earth allows for so much mass before it gets into a cycle of some sort. Thus, is the reason the fossils are so deep because of layers of earth, or is it because of changes in sea level and weather patterns, and short geological shifts in environments, and its associated matter?

##### Share on other sites

I see that an idea here is will the mass of the earth be able to manipulate the moon, considering the masses of planetary bodies interacting. That is a hard one to think about. A cool idea would be to see in general how much weight is really added per year. I could think of plants and animal population averages, astroids, too. I guess radioactive decay is always occurring too, right? That would mean that it is an always changing mass measurement, because of atomic change from neutron decay. Even global warming and ocean evaporation, and this escaping into space, or lingering as weather.

In considering that calculation you made, that is interesting. I see you are relating that specifically to the amount of vegetation. I am not exactly sure how that works out, but I would also consider some ideas, such as whether the earth allows for so much mass before it gets into a cycle of some sort. Thus, is the reason the fossils are so deep because of layers of earth, or is it because of changes in sea level and weather patterns, and short geological shifts in environments, and its associated matter?

So are you the latest competition to the Thoth on science from never-neverland?

##### Share on other sites

So are you the latest competition to the Thoth on science from never-neverland?

if you don't like the post you dont have to take part its that simple

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.