ChatGPT: Exploring the physics of sun blocker

Hypothetical: suppose that a malevolent entity were to position an object between the Sun and the Earth such that the object orbited the Sun in synchronicity with the Earth's orbit so that the Earth (the entire Earth) was always in the penumbra of the object's shadow - blocking all light/radiation from the Sun from reaching the Earth. The object might be in a natural orbit or it might be capable of autonomous movement to correct degradations in it's natural orbit.

Given that hypothetical, how large of a radius would the object have to be (assuming the object was either a sphere or a disc) to block the sun's radiation/light from the earth if it were two times the lunar distance from the earth? What if it were ten times the lunar distance from the earth?

Given that hypothetical, what is the maximum mass the object could be without significantly affecting the orbits of the moon or earth if were two times the lunar distance from the earth? What if it were ten times the lunar distance from the earth?

Is there an optimal distance from the Earth to minimize the object's size (radius) and maximize the object's mass (without affecting significantly affecting the orbits of the moon or earth)? If so, what would that be (distance, radius and mass)?

In the hypothetical scenario where an object is continuously positioned between the Sun and the Earth at a certain distance, blocking all solar radiation from reaching the Earth, we can analyze the requirements for such an object to effectively block sunlight.

1. **Radius of the Object**:
When the object is located at two times the lunar distance from Earth (approximately 768,800 km), it would need to have a radius large enough to cover the width of the Earth to block all sunlight. The Earth has an average radius of about 6,371 km. Therefore, the object would need to have a diameter that is twice the Earth's diameter, meaning a diameter of approximately 12,742 km.

When positioned at ten times the lunar distance (approximately 3,844,000 km), the object's radius would have to be significantly larger to cover the Earth's width. In this case, the object would need a diameter of about 127,420 km.

2. **Mass Limitations**:
The mass of the object required to block sunlight from reaching the Earth would depend on its size and distance from the Earth. The gravitational influence of the object on the Earth and Moon's orbits would need to be minimized to avoid significant disruptions.

At two times the lunar distance, if the object is not too massive, its gravitational effect on the Earth and Moon should be negligible. However, as the distance increases to ten times the lunar distance, the mass of the object would need to be carefully considered to avoid affecting the orbits significantly.

3. **Optimal Distance**:
To minimize the size (radius) and maximize the mass of the object without significantly affecting the orbits of the Earth and Moon, an optimal distance should be determined. This distance would likely be closer to Earth than ten times the lunar distance, where the object's size and mass requirements would be more manageable while ensuring minimal impact on the orbits.

An actual detailed analysis would involve complex calculations that take into account the gravitational forces between the Earth, Moon, Sun, and the blocking object, as well as the dynamics of orbital mechanics. It would require sophisticated numerical simulations to find the optimal distance, radius, and mass of the object to achieve the desired blocking effect without disrupting the Earth-Moon system significantly.

ChatGPT said:

In the hypothetical scenario ... At two times the lunar distance, ...

Click to expand...

If the object were at two times the lunar distance, and the mass was equal to the mass of the earth, would it affect the moon's orbit? What if the object was equal to the mass of the moon (at two times lunar distance)?

pmbug said:

If the object were at two times the lunar distance, and the mass was equal to the mass of the earth, would it affect the moon's orbit? What if the object was equal to the mass of the moon (at two times lunar distance)?

Click to expand...

In the hypothetical scenario where the blocking object is located at two times the lunar distance from Earth and has a mass equal to that of the Earth, the gravitational effects on the Moon's orbit would indeed be significant. When an object with the same mass as the Earth is introduced at such a distance, it would gravitationally interact with the Earth and the Moon, leading to noticeable perturbations in the Moon's orbit.

The gravitational force between two objects is determined by their masses and the distance between them, as described by Newton's law of universal gravitation. Given the significant mass of the object in this scenario, its gravitational influence on the Moon would cause changes in the Moon's orbit, potentially leading to orbital resonances, changes in eccentricity, or alterations in the Moon's orbital plane.

If the blocking object had a mass equal to that of the Moon and was located at two times the lunar distance, it would also affect the Moon's orbit, though to a lesser extent compared to an Earth-mass object. The gravitational effects would still be noticeable, potentially leading to perturbations in the Moon's orbit, but they might be less drastic compared to the Earth-mass object due to the lower mass of the blocking object.

In summary, any object with a considerable mass located at a distance that is in close proximity to celestial bodies like the Earth and the Moon would have gravitational effects that could significantly influence the orbits of these bodies, potentially leading to complex interactions and changes in orbital parameters.

ChatGPT said:

In the hypothetical scenario where the blocking object is located at two times the lunar distance from Earth and has a mass equal to that of the Earth ...

Click to expand...

What if the object's mass was one tenth the mass of the moon? What percentage of the moon's mass would the object need to be in order to not significantly affect the moon's orbit?

pmbug said:

What if the object's mass was one tenth the mass of the moon? What percentage of the moon's mass would the object need to be in order to not significantly affect the moon's orbit?

Click to expand...

If the blocking object's mass was one tenth the mass of the Moon and it was located at two times the lunar distance from Earth, the impact on the Moon's orbit would be less significant compared to a more massive object. The object's mass being one tenth that of the Moon implies a much lower gravitational influence on the Moon's orbit.

To determine the percentage of the Moon's mass that the object would need to be in order to not significantly affect the Moon's orbit, we can assess the gravitational interactions between the Moon and the object.

If the object's mass is one tenth that of the Moon, it would exert a fraction (1/10) of the gravitational force on the Moon compared to the Moon itself. In terms of percentage, the object would need to be less than 10% of the Moon’s mass in order to have a minimal effect on the Moon's orbit.

This calculation is based on the understanding that gravitational forces between two objects are directly proportional to their masses. Therefore, a lower mass object would exert a weaker gravitational influence on the Moon, potentially resulting in a minimal impact on its orbit. If the object's mass stays below 10% of the Moon's mass, the effect on the Moon's orbit could be considered negligible.

ChatGPT said:

If the blocking object ...

Click to expand...

In the given hypothetical, assume that the object exists suddenly and does not perturb the orbits of the moon or earth. I would like to know how fast the earth would cool to the point that most life on earth dies. What would be the order of catastrophic consequences (cooling air, earth, seas/water affecting weather patterns; plants/fauna dying from lack of sunlight breaking down food chains; etc.), from no sunlight/radiation reaching the earth?

pmbug said:

In the given hypothetical, assume that the object exists suddenly and does not perturb the orbits of the moon or earth. I would like to know how fast the earth would cool to the point that most life on earth dies. What would be the order of catastrophic consequences (cooling air, earth, seas/water affecting weather patterns; plants/fauna dying from lack of sunlight breaking down food chains; etc.), from no sunlight/radiation reaching the earth?

Click to expand...

In the hypothetical scenario where a blocking object suddenly appears between the Sun and the Earth, completely obstructing sunlight from reaching the Earth, the consequences would be catastrophic for life on Earth. Here's a general outline of the order of catastrophic consequences and the timeline of Earth cooling down to the point where most life dies:

1. **Immediate Impact (First Day)**:
- Almost instantaneously, the Earth would start cooling down as it loses the primary source of heat and light.
- Temperatures would rapidly drop as the atmosphere and the surface begin to lose the energy received from the Sun.
- Within hours, the Earth would enter a rapid cooling phase, with the temperature dropping significantly.

2. **First Week**:
- As the Earth cools, the first noticeable impact would be on the atmosphere. Air temperature would drop rapidly, leading to extreme cold temperatures worldwide.
- Weather patterns would be disrupted due to the lack of solar energy, leading to erratic climate conditions and potentially violent storms as temperature differentials rapidly shift.

3. **First Month**:
- With the absence of sunlight, the Earth's surface temperature would continue to plummet, causing widespread freezing.
- The seas and oceans would start to freeze over, affecting marine life. The frozen surface would prevent heat transfer from the ocean depths, disrupting marine ecosystems.

4. **First Year**:
- The lack of sunlight reaching the Earth would cause widespread plant die-offs due to the interruption of photosynthesis. Plants would be unable to produce food, leading to a collapse in the food chain.
- Herbivores depending on plants for sustenance would rapidly decline, followed by a cascading impact on carnivores further up the food chain.

5. **Following Years**:
- As the cooling persists, all major ecosystems on Earth would collapse, leading to a mass extinction event as most forms of life dependent on sunlight and the food chain perish.
- The Earth's surface would eventually become frozen, with ice covering much of the land and sea.

6. **Long-Term Impact**:
- Over the long term, the Earth would resemble a frozen wasteland, with drastically reduced biodiversity and almost all forms of life extinct.
- Only extremophiles—organisms capable of surviving in extreme conditions—might have a chance of persisting in deep sea vents or other isolated habitats.

In conclusion, the sudden obstruction of sunlight from reaching the Earth would have devastating consequences, leading to a rapid and catastrophic cooling of the planet, disrupting ecosystems, and ultimately resulting in a mass extinction event affecting most life on Earth.

ChatGPT said:

In the hypothetical scenario ...

Click to expand...

Assume that some humans built an underground shelter and the shelter has unlimited stores of non-perishable food and water. How deep underground would the shelter need to be in order to maintain livable warmth for the first month or year in the hypothetical scenario?

pmbug said:

Assume that some humans built an underground shelter and the shelter has unlimited stores of non-perishable food and water. How deep underground would the shelter need to be in order to maintain livable warmth for the first month or year in the hypothetical scenario?

Click to expand...

In the hypothetical scenario where a blocking object prevents sunlight from reaching the Earth, causing a catastrophic global cooling event, an underground shelter with unlimited stores of non-perishable food and water would be crucial for survival. The depth at which the shelter needs to be located to maintain livable warmth would depend on several factors, including the rate of heat loss from the Earth's surface and the insulation properties of the shelter.

To provide a general estimation:

1. **Initial Depth for the First Month**:
- To withstand the initial rapid cooling phase and maintain livable warmth for the first month, the shelter would need to be located at a depth sufficient to protect against the drastic drop in surface temperatures.
- Considering the immediate impact of the cooling event, the shelter would likely need to be at a depth of several hundred meters to a kilometer underground to mitigate the extreme surface temperature changes.

2. **Long-Term Survival (First Year and Beyond)**:
- For long-term survival beyond the first year, the shelter may need to be even deeper to sustain livable warmth as the surface temperatures continue to plummet.
- Depth requirements for the shelter to maintain livable warmth for an extended period would likely be in the range of several kilometers below the surface.

The actual depth needed for the underground shelter to maintain livable warmth would depend on various factors such as the rate of heat loss from the Earth, the insulating properties of the shelter structure, the geothermal heat coming from the Earth's interior, and the specific conditions of the global cooling event.

Additionally, to enhance the shelter's warmth retention capabilities, it could be equipped with insulation materials, geothermal heating systems, energy-efficient ventilation, and possibly alternative energy sources to supplement heating needs.

Overall, the depth of the underground shelter needed to maintain livable warmth for the first month or year in the hypothetical scenario of a global cooling event blocking sunlight from reaching the Earth would likely be hundreds of meters to several kilometers below the surface, depending on the severity and duration of the cooling event.