Skip to main content
24 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 17, 2023 at 6:39 comment added ProfRob @rob It is neither of the above scenarios since the planet would be intact, but not travelling rapidly radially inwards.
May 17, 2023 at 4:19 comment added rob I'm interested in a comparison between this answer and the recent observation of a planet being engulfed by a red giant. I'll follow this answer for updates, but I can ask a new question if that makes more sense.
Feb 11, 2020 at 15:46 comment added Kevin Kostlan @ AnoE: The disk would radiate most of it's energy above and below the ecliptic plane. If it was just solar heating Earth gets cold while asteroids on very high inclination orbits get warmer. But the disk will also be heated gravitationally like all accretion disks, so we don't know which effect wins.
Apr 29, 2018 at 22:24 comment added ProfRob @AnoE My wording "the sunlight falling on the Earth would be very significantly reduced" was carefully chosen for exactly the reason you note. The disk "photosphere" will likely be cooler than the solar photosphere.
Apr 29, 2018 at 18:03 comment added AnoE Could you, for a laymen, point out by what mechanism the darkening of >20% would happen? I mean, yes, there's more matter between us and the sun, but it gets heated by the sun and will soon (?) be saturated, at which point it has no choice than to pass the energy on? You seem to be alluding to that with the sentence ... it would be kicking off a lot of radiation! - would that be a different kind of radiation (different spectrum, unsuitable for us on Earth?).
Apr 29, 2018 at 1:01 comment added Anton Sherwood It seems you've killed Larry Niven's novel A World Out of Time, whose backstory is that a planet was dropped (from well beyond Pluto) into the Sun as an act of war, making the Sun inconveniently hotter for megayears.
S Apr 28, 2018 at 14:43 history suggested user59991 CC BY-SA 3.0
typography corrected
Apr 28, 2018 at 13:57 review Suggested edits
S Apr 28, 2018 at 14:43
Apr 28, 2018 at 9:25 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 225 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 21:09 vote accept Allure
Apr 27, 2018 at 21:09 comment added Allure I'm accepting this answer since it's the most comprehensive. It's also the most technical, but hey, this is the Physics SE.
Apr 27, 2018 at 19:21 comment added Don Branson @ToddWilcox Sanity is overrated, so I hear.
Apr 27, 2018 at 18:31 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 1 character in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 18:31 comment added Todd Wilcox I'm so glad I'm not crazy. :)
Apr 27, 2018 at 16:45 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 586 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 15:21 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 276 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 14:16 comment added 16807 I just realized I mistyped that estimate, but my point was 10^35 is difficult to get to for a payoff of 4 orders of magnitude.
Apr 27, 2018 at 14:11 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 2481 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 14:04 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 2481 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 13:25 comment added ProfRob @16807 The kinetic energy of Jupiter is $1.6\times 10^{35}$J. So actually, quite a good doomsday weapon.
Apr 27, 2018 at 12:09 comment added 16807 It would take 10^39 Joules to kill all of Jupiter's orbital velocity and enact this scenario, so not that great a doomsday weapon.
Apr 27, 2018 at 11:15 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 88 characters in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00 history edited ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Apr 27, 2018 at 10:24 history answered ProfRob CC BY-SA 3.0