Assistance with theoretical concepts?

[Proud Astrophile]

Let's say in an alternate universe there is a stationary (as in no spin, no orbit, etc.) planet orbited by a star. Rather than having a continuous orbit, the star is capable of disappearing from one point and reappearing in another. It's movement patterns are irregular, sometimes remaining in one position for months or a few years, sometimes for weeks.

What would the climate and/or weather of such a planet be like? What gravitational effects would a moon being added to the mixture cause? Would the moon cause the planet to move in some way, even with a still core?

Additionally, what effect would the moon have if there were no bodies of water larger than a lake? What climate and/or weather effects would this lack of oceans cause, and would the existence of a moon or lack thereof play a pivotal role?

 

How hot would the areas with direct sunlight for extended periods of time become, and conversely how cold without?
Since the sun moves, would a desert climate or arctic climate have the chance to form? Would there be widespread droughts and mini ice ages?

Edited August 19, 2013 by Proud Astrophile

[Enthalpy]

Your "alternate universe" obviously doesn't obey the laws of physics. How should someone deduce anything about climate then?

[arc]

Let's say in an alternate universe there is a stationary (as in no spin, no orbit, etc.) planet orbited by a star. Rather than having a continuous orbit, the star is capable of disappearing from one point and reappearing in another. It's movement patterns are irregular, sometimes remaining in one position for months or a few years, sometimes for weeks.

 

What would the climate and/or weather of such a planet be like? What gravitational effects would a moon being added to the mixture cause? Would the moon cause the planet to move in some way, even with a still core?

 

Additionally, what effect would the moon have if there were no bodies of water larger than a lake? What climate and/or weather effects would this lack of oceans cause, and would the existence of a moon or lack thereof play a pivotal role?

 

How hot would the areas with direct sunlight for extended periods of time become, and conversely how cold without?

Since the sun moves, would a desert climate or arctic climate have the chance to form? Would there be widespread droughts and mini ice ages?

All these questions remind me of driving around when my oldest son was about 8 years old, after about an hour I could feel my brains begin turning into mush.

In this universe planets only behave like similar planets and stars only behave like stars of similar masses.

Nothing out of the ordinary should be expected. Using your description above, you can choose any outcome you want. In your theoretical universe there are obviously very few laws to obey and those that do, need not be consistent. Enjoy

Edited August 20, 2013 by arc

[Proud Astrophile]

This theoretical universe has "laws", they merely don't mirror ours precisely. I've read theories on the possible outcome should Earth ever stop spinning, either gradually or abruptly. Yes, the concept is based on an improbable or perhaps even impossible eventuality, but it can still be postulated upon. In my opinion, it should be possible to apply one's understanding of the way our world works to a theoretical system with a few deviations. Otherwise, perhaps you do not fully grasp the science behind it or simply lack imagination.

 

The proposed planet in actuality is not THAT different from our own. The biggest difference is that the sun orbits it rather than the other way around, and in an irregular rather than predetermined pattern.

 

As a rebuff to the suggestion that the effects on a system that deviates so much from our own cannot be speculated upon, here is a link to another forum I posed these questions to: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/542161-assistance-on-theoretical-concepts.html

 

While it is certainly true that this is a forum of writers rather than scientists, I can't help but wonder if the better scientist is the one who sticks to what they know or the one who is willing to think outside the box.

[arc]

This theoretical universe has "laws", they merely don't mirror ours precisely. I've read theories on the possible outcome should Earth ever stop spinning, either gradually or abruptly. Yes, the concept is based on an improbable or perhaps even impossible eventuality, but it can still be postulated upon. In my opinion, it should be possible to apply one's understanding of the way our world works to a theoretical system with a few deviations. Otherwise, perhaps you do not fully grasp the science behind it or simply lack imagination.

 

The proposed planet in actuality is not THAT different from our own. The biggest difference is that the sun orbits it rather than the other way around, and in an irregular rather than predetermined pattern.

 

As a rebuff to the suggestion that the effects on a system that deviates so much from our own cannot be speculated upon, here is a link to another forum I posed these questions to: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/542161-assistance-on-theoretical-concepts.html

 

While it is certainly true that this is a forum of writers rather than scientists, I can't help but wonder if the better scientist is the one who sticks to what they know or the one who is willing to think outside the box.

 

OK Proud the first thing you should understand is I am not a scientist. The second is I can REALLY think outside the box. But what you will also need to understand is most people require the conditions that meet their level of logical thinking. Your outline is difficult to theorize about due to the unusual arrangement or should I say derangement of masses and fundamental forces like gravity.

 

It is apparent in your model that the smaller the mass the greater the gravitational attraction which seems to allow a star to orbit a planet. But then how does the star produce the pressures required for fusion, which it needs to be a star. Without critical mass it would be a big cloud of gas or maybe a gas giant.

 

The planet has the gravity to dominate the star, to remain in the center of the system that the star navigates into and out of. With the required gravitational pull your only option maybe that it is the dense core of a dead star with weather probably confined to a few centimeters of the surface. So I'm kind of stuck getting this idea off the ground. Any Ideas?

 

Look what I just found;

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78167-stars-orbiting-non-stars/

stars orbiting non-stars

Started by Didymus, Today, 08:20 PM

 

What a coincidence.

Edited August 20, 2013 by arc

[Proud Astrophile]

I think perhaps the problem is that you are too caught up in the illogic of the sun orbiting the planet to see past that one aspect. If our sun orbited Earth rather than the other way around, whatever has to happen to make that possible and without getting too derailed by the logistics of the impossible gravitational sciences of it all, what would or could be the result? If the Earth for some reason gradually stopped spinning and orbiting for a period of months or weeks, and thus part of the planet remained in constant direct sunlight while the other went completely without, what would happen?

 

Perhaps this theoretical planet has a field of some sort around it that puts out enough gravitational force to attract the star. Perhaps the nature of the star keeps it in place around the nearest planet after its conception. Perhaps its mass is particularly low and its method of fusion vastly different from our own solar system.

[arc]

I think perhaps the problem is that you are too caught up in the illogic of the sun orbiting the planet to see past that one aspect. If our sun orbited Earth rather than the other way around, whatever has to happen to make that possible and without getting too derailed by the logistics of the impossible gravitational sciences of it all, what would or could be the result? If the Earth for some reason gradually stopped spinning and orbiting for a period of months or weeks, and thus part of the planet remained in constant direct sunlight while the other went completely without, what would happen?

 

Perhaps this theoretical planet has a field of some sort around it that puts out enough gravitational force to attract the star. Perhaps the nature of the star keeps it in place around the nearest planet after its conception. Perhaps its mass is particularly low and its method of fusion vastly different from our own solar system.

 

Proud, let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a science fiction movie that had a story that was so technically improbable that it was painful to watch. You know, like when the astronauts are in orbit and there is no zero gravity. It almost always tops off a really bad story line. It is difficult to discuss the concept of this thread because anything can happen. To borrow a theme from here at SFN - a thought salad.

 

 

Perhaps this theoretical planet has a field of some sort around it that puts out enough gravitational force to attract the star. Perhaps the nature of the star keeps it in place around the nearest planet after its conception. Perhaps its mass is particularly low and its method of fusion vastly different from our own solar system.

You cannot simply say the above and expect constructive dialog, because these rules that our universe operates by are entwined in our minds with a vast construct of logical outcomes that give us a accurate picture of how things work. You change a key force or law and it is like moving a foundation stone, you will knock loose every brick in the wall.

 

Nothing in your model is based on the laws of this universe that allow a logical predictive evaluation. Would you want to play a game like chess where there are no logical rules, it would become as tedious as building a house of cards on horse back.

 

Why do you want to know this anyway?

Edited August 21, 2013 by arc

[Enviro0801]

Sheesh, some of you people have no imagination... And I'm thinking the host is a Picies lol. Anyways, I'm all for the eccentric and imaginative scenarios. I would also like to point out that my "expertise" is in Environmental Science and not Physics, so don't expect it all to make sense lol. So the initial scenario is missing a few assumptions/manipulations from my perspective...
1. The physical laws in this universe are completely different, but irronically analagous to our own laws. Within the magnetic field of the alternate planet, gravity works the way we understand it to work. Gravity working on celestial bodies in outerspace, however, work almost the opposite. I feel this is necessary for a weather/climate scenario, because otherwise I imagine this planet to be an open system (not closed like ours), and therefor barren.
2. Given #1, there would be no permanant moon because the planet would have to orbit around it, yet it's still. If there were a moon, eventually the planet and star would zoom away from it because of the oppositional gravitational forces at play. So let's also assume that the irregular behavior of the star somehow prevents opposite gravity from seperating the system (otherwise we're screwed lol).

 

Ok so now that the psuedophysics are out of the way, let's get down to business . No significant moon impact, but also no oceans, so no significant tidal system. Without ocean currents to circulate warm/cool water, this planet would have very little percipitation. There would be no hurricanes without significantly large and warm bodies of water. The only time there would be evaporation is when the star jumps into a position facing a lake. The amount of evaporation and subsequent percipitation depends on the size of the lake, and the duration of the star's positioning. Potentially the lake could be completely dried up if the star is there long enough. There is no spin, so no correolis effect (also means no tornados or hurricanes), and also no jet streams to drive the storm. So the water would simply percipitate back to its original position as a lake, moreorless. There would be no wind, so no dust storms or anything like that... Without the transfer of energy by storms and currents, the part of the planet exposed to the star would heat up extremely quickly, and cool down just as fast when not exposed. If life evolved on this planet, it would be virtually impervioius to temperature conditions (super sophistiated endotherm?), but probably non-existant based on the theory that life originated from chemical interactions around deep sea vents, and our planet lacks oceans and geothermal energy. Even if you went with the theory that a meteor brought over the precursors to life, with the opposite gravity the meteors would be repelled away. Soooo yeh this universe could not support life, unless you got God on your side. All-in-all, pretty lame and homologous weather and climate. The only cool part would be the rapid heating/freezing and evaporation/precipitation processes.

Finally, I am just going to ignore the fact that the entire surface of the planet would be level without plate tectonic activity or meteors barging into it, and as a consequence no lakes. And all the other illogical conditions I just completely ignored. Put that in your bowl and smoke it!

 

PS- On second thought, I should have went with describing the much more interesting and dynamic star, with something like Helium-based lifeforms that evolved the ability to transport themselves physically, and transfer their consciousness between individuals. They could literally be two places at once... Would there even be "individuals"?.. Damn it...

Edited August 23, 2013 by Enviro0801

[arc]

Sheesh, some of you people have no imagination...

 

That is grossly inaccurate. You ended up where I did.

 

with weather probably confined to a few centimeters of the surface. So I'm kind of stuck getting this idea off the ground. Any Ideas?

 

 

What a coincidence.

[Proud Astrophile]

Interesting conclusions, Enviro. Someone on the other forum concluded that the vastly different surface temperatures on the planet would create heavy wind storms in between, but as I don't have any sort of environmental background I have no idea which of you is closer to correct!

 

I will say, though, that taking a lot of what was said on the other forum into consideration, I completely reworked my initial idea. Like so:

 

Let's say this unmoving planet exists far outside the habitable zone of any star. However, it is orbited by a moon that gives off heat and light (comparable to what we feel and see of our own sun). For simplicity's sake, the moon orbits the planet at a similar rate to that of Earth's spin (i.e. it completes one circuit around the planet every 24 hours). However, it orbits around both the equator and the prime meridian -- first one, then the other. Also, the oceans were once filled with water, but something caused that to no longer be the case...if that makes any difference.

 

Any conclusions that could be drawn from that would be greatly appreciated. You bring up points that I hadn't considered nor even realized should be considered. It's very helpful!