What is the Sun's affect on Earth's orbit

[Bluemoon]

The Sun's mass is decreasing all of the time, because of nuclear fusion and the solar wind and coronal mass ejections.

How much has this altered the Earth's orbit over the last 10,000 years?

[mathematic]

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2004-2/articlesu7.html

 

The above may help.

[swansont]

I ran that calculation recently. For a circular orbit the steady-state distance would differ by about 1 cm per year from the fusion, assuming my math is correct.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85792-gravity/page-7#entry829175

 

So roughly 100 meters in 10,000 years

[Bluemoon]

Thank you for the answer swansont.

 

 

mathematic, thats an interesting site, thanks, though it gives the Total Mass Loss rate for the Sun here:-

 

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2004-2/articlesu1.html#x6-30002.1

 

as:-

 

" These solar wind data imply a total mass loss rate for the Sun of M˙≈ 2 × 10 −14 SM / yr "

 

which would, if I've done my maths correctly, make swansont's estimate too big by about 3 times.

[Sensei]

The Sun's mass is decreasing all of the time, because of nuclear fusion and the solar wind and coronal mass ejections.

How much has this altered the Earth's orbit over the last 10,000 years?

 

See thread where reactions on the Sun are described with more details

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85656-solar-fusion-neutrinos-and-age-of-solar-system/

 

Every second Sun emits energy [latex]3.8651*10^{26} J [/latex]

Multiply it by time, and divide by c^2, and you will have lost of mass caused by fusion.

 

In 10,000 years it's 1.36*10^21 kg lost.

 

Now include to it solar wind and coronal mass ejections.

 

It's less than 1 per billion of Solar mass.

[Bluemoon]

This is a bit of a problem, Sensei.

 

Your data concurs with swansont's figure for the Sun's mass loss rate and that's ~3 times higher than the data

given in the webpage that mathematic's link points to; which I guess originates from formal research.

 

Yet your basis for the figure that you give seems robust (too).

 

!!