Distance between Sun and Earth remain same?

Does the distance between Sun and Earth remain same?

Well Since the path is elipse So at some places the distance is large
and at some places it is small.

I am talking about the average distance. Does the shape of path
changes with time?

How Earth was Born. Was it there even before Sun? Or is Earth made of
small Asteroids in Juptiors belt?

Is earth part of Jupiter broken away by some large collision?

I read somewhere Earth Collided with a big asteroid and moon was
formed. Is moon part of earth?

Which was Made first the Earth or the Moon.

If moon was part of earth then Earth Gravity would have been larger
than now? Was there life on earth before the moon was broken from
earth?

Is there any way to know the path of Earth million years back?

Does earth go back to exact same place after 1 year or its distance
changes with time? If we neglect the movement of Solar System arround
Galexy.

Bye
Sanny

Be Intelligent: [Only registered users see links. ]

Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> writes:




Newton's Laws would have it stay the same. I suppose that with the solar
wind and loss of energy (E=mc^2) the sun is losing mass and the distance
would increase, but the effect is very small.


Current theory is the Sun and planets all formed at one time from a
gravitationally collapsing cloud of dust and gas.


No.


That's the best current theory, except "planet" might be a better term
than "big asteroid".


If you accept the giant impactor theory, it was 2 planets become the
Earth and Moon.


If not too much mass escaped entirely, it would have been smaller, since
the Mars-sized impactor was larger than the moon (aside: how much matter
likely escaped?)

proto-Earth + Mars-sized planet = Earth + Moon + escaped debris


Too soon after the original condensation from proto-planets.

On Nov 6, 9:54 am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

As our sun continually loses mass and Earth continually gains mass
(roughly 40e3 tonnes/year) could become an unfortunate trade-off, or a
tidal radius wash that'll not exactly help us when our sun starts to
die on us.

Of course, the odds of humanity making a go of it much past the next
thousand years is not exactly looking all that certain either. So
what's the difference.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

Dear Sanny:

On Nov 6, 10:54*am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Yes.


It is believe it was agglomerated from interstellar material, that is
coalesced from stuff located near our Sun, and was entirely molten at
the time the Sun "lit". No real "prehistory" has been found to
support loose aggregation.


Not likely. Evidence of heat, not cool.


It is believed so by many. It is comprised of the lighter elements.


We have "gravity history" dating back to when the Moon was separated
from the Earth by only a billion years or so. Nothing before this.


Possible very simple life. Single cells, perhaps. Exceedingly hot,
no evidence of water.


Sure. With increasing errors the further back you go.


Changes with time. Precesses with time.


No chance of looking for "exploded bits" where the collision might
have occurred, since they would also have been in various orbits.

On Nov 6, 10:07 am, [Only registered users see links. ].spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

Except that our solar system is a fairly recent cosmic artifact, and
lord only knows how many times the Milky Way itself has gotten reborn
after encountering other rogue galaxies. Most of the Universe as
offering their surface solids as viable planets with a sufficient
composite crust that's covering their otherwise 98~99+% fluid orb, is
likely billions of years older than Earth.

The planet Venus is likely 99+% fluid, with something less than 1%
(perhaps as little as 0.5%) representing its surface crust. It just
doesn't add up to what our mainstream status quo (including yourself)
has been telling us.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:54:25 -0800 (PST), Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:
<snip>
<snip>

Heh... kinda moot, no? There almost certainly wasn't any life
immediately *afterward*.
--
Dave

On Nov 6, 9:54*am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Yes, it becomes more circular. Earth will gradually recede.




Pretty much, only maybe not from the Jupiter belt.




Definitely not.




Balderdash!




They accreted during the same time period.




Almost.




Double-A

Dear Double-A:

On Nov 6, 1:28*pm, Double-A <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
....

Formation of the Moon as a spin-off from Earth (as opposed to a
separate accretion) is a recognized model. Note that tidal rhythmites
establish a recession of the Moon form the Earth at varying rates back
to about 2.2 Gy ago. Doesn't ensure that the Moon "spun off" the
Earth, but that it must have been accreted later than the Earth if it
did not spin off.

Do you wish to discuss the strong opinion you have stated here?

David A. Smith

On Nov 6, 12:54*pm, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

No. The earth's orbit about the sun is elliptical, albeit of small
eccentricity. This means it's almost a circle, but with a slight
elongation. As a consequence, we're a bit closer to the sun in
January than we are in June.


Exactly, though there is not a whole lot of difference.


No. The shape doesn't change, but the ellipse does tend to precess
extremely slowly.


Supposedly, the sun and all the planets formed out of a rotating cloud
of gas and dust.



No.


Not an asteroid as much as a so-called planetoid, about half the size
of Mars.


Supposedly the Earth.



Maybe, but probably only single celled organisms.


Celestial mechanics makes very accurate predictions of where
everything was and how it was moving going back billions of years. At
least back as far as about three billion years when everything was
finally settled into the stable configuration we see today.


The Earth is an extended body, so the answer would probably be no.

On Nov 6, 1:11*pm, dlzc <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


David,

The Moon has no trace of atmosphere or moisture. It appears nothing
like the Earth. If it has always been in the vicinity of the Earth,
how did it lose its atmosphere so completely, while the Earth has so
much atmosphere and water? Because it is so much smaller? The dwarf
planet Ceres has only one third the diameter of our Moon and yet it
has an atmosphere. How do you explain that? I think our Moon was
once in an orbit that took it much closer to the Sun. It resembles
Mercury more thann anything else.

Double-A