Solem Reliquit

>>52452070

>Could humanity find a way to survive this scenario without the warming light of the Sun?

No.

>Could some part of humanity survive on the warmth, energy, and light of other fuels, maybe in massive underground warrens?

No.

>How long till all traditional fossil fuels run out?

They wouldn't. We'd all die before then.

>Could we even manage to survive long enough to acquire them?

No.

>What if we had a decade of forewarning?

No.

>A century?

No. We can't even get our heads around fixing pollution issues.

>What types of planets or animals would we try to save to sustain ourselves?

None.

>Could we obtain some sort of extremophile bacteria which derives its energy from sources other than the sun, and modify it in some way to make it edible or useful?

No.

>What would the effects be?

We'd all freeze to death, everything would die off, and what little remains would suffocate.

>How extreme would the cold (maybe better to think of it as a lack of any heat)

Very extreme.

>How long till the oceans freeze all the way through?

Millions of years. Tectonic activity would still occur.

>Would the force of the freeze crack the Crust all the way to the Mantle?

No.

>What other extreme physical effects would happen?

Depends if the Earth keeps spinning.

>Would all weather on the planet end without a sun to cause disparate seasons of warmth and cooling?

Eventually, yes.

That's all you're gonna get on this bullshit.

>>52452070

Check this out, talks about a similar situation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rltpH6ck2Kc

>>52452971
>>52452971
>no fun allowed

File: Mongo1.png (663KB, 625x480px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 625x480px

>>52452971
fuck you unbeliever. Mongo did it before it was cool and was quite successful.

File: mixed reactions.jpg (44KB, 425x282px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 425x282px

>>52453033
fuck this guy is an annoying faggot, but I did learn some of the answers I wanted to know.

>>52453312

>Here's a situation where the earth is thrown outside the Goldilocks Zone
>I'll even throw in some shit that forgets that whatever hemisphere was last facing the sun will be trapped in a perpetual day cycle that's fading slowly away whilst the other half is trapped in perpetual night time.
>Oh and as a bonus round we are warned that this is coming.
>Can we as humanity survive it?

No.

>>52453312
It isn't about fun, when the very thing sustaining life on this ball of mud and rock is torn away from us, and we are sent careening into the freezing cold void of space you illiterate mong. Our world unlike many fantasy settings, doesn't possess magical capability in any extreme to survive something like this scenario.

>>52453549

If we had warning, you know what could do?

Leave.

Sure, rushing int o space to eek out a like on unterraformed Mars or in stations is far from ideal. But it sure as hell beats trying to survive on Exoplanet Earth.

Indeed, there is a major overlap in technologies required to try and survive on exoEarth and making space stations sustainable anyway. Sort of a 2 for 1.

>>52453312
>>52453312
There's not a get-out clause or 11th hour solution to this. Nor is it a Lost-Planet scenario where we try syphon heat to keep alive because it's a bit chilly outside.

It's literally the end of the world.

Everyone freezes, starves, dehydrates or suffocates to death. Drilling into the core isn't a possibility because we don't have the tooling to carve out a fully supporting habitat in the first place you'd also still fucking freeze to death. And you won't get some kind of Fantasy-world scenario and just go spark a fire - that's because the surrounding environment would sap all the necessary energy to get the reaction going with your fuel source.

I'm pretty sure >>52452971 knows what he's talking about too.

File: tfw1.jpg (29KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x375px

>>52452971
>>52453487
>>52453549
>>52453802

>humans can build space ships and have people live on them in the vaccuum of space indefinitely, but it's impossible for them to insulate habitats on earth to survive the extreme lack of heat or grow plants indoors on artificial light with electricity based on fossil fuels, which we have so much of, running out isn't a real problem, and nuclear power remains an option if we do.

Holy Christ you guys are soft as fuck pessimists. Don't you remember what it was like to believe in man as a heroic achiever of seemingly impossible obstacles? I need some HFY mentality. Yes I completely understand that this is death for 99.99% of humanity, but come on. You're telling me that there is literally zero chance for any group of people to make it with even a century of prep time.

What exactly can't be overcome here?

>>52453636
Thought about this, but forgot to include it in the OP. I agree, but at least on Earth we have access to the vast stores of fossil fuels that can keep us warm, and Earth is for sure gonna keep a warm core for a billion years. I'm not sure Mars even has an active core.
t.b.h. I'd take my chances on Exo-Earth.

>>52453636
>If we had warning, you know what could do?
>Leave.

With what exactly and who and where?

You do understand astronauts are some of the best and brightest the planet has right? You don't just rock up with a high school diploma and get to spend time in space. Civilization would literally tear itself apart trying to be the ones who get on the shuttle.

Assuming then you did break orbit people would be fucked.

The Space stations in orbit around Earth are hell to live in because shit breaks down and the supplies and spares on board are limited and with earth dead you aren't getting resupplied.

Eventually something breaks and you die. Or your resources run out (since everyone is living on board these places) and you die.

Going to Mars is even more retarded - it takes up to 300 days to just get to mars. By the time people got there assuming they had enough supplies they would "somehow" need to manage to get down there and set up shop with basically no support or tooling other than what they brought, and even if they then found liquid water and an O2 supply they'd be so far up shits creek they may as well die. Mars can't support life as it is you utter moron, how is it going to be any different with thousands of people?

>>52452070
>Could humanity find a way to survive this scenario without the warming light of the Sun?

No. Not without a whole lot of advanced warning.
We'd basically be dealing with trying to establish sustainable colonies on a dead world, but harder since you can't rely on solar power.

If we had enough warning we could try to establish nuclear powered self sustaining habitats, to keep a very small portion of the population arrive.

>What if we had a decade of forewarning? A century?
Maybe.

>>52453892
>we have access to the vast stores of fossil fuels that can keep us warm,
You're better off going nuclear.
Getting to those reserves on iceball earth is likely to be a net loss.

>>52453998
>Mars can't support life as it is you utter moron, how is it going to be any different with thousands of people?
The advantage that it has over exo-earth is you can still count on the sun for solar energy. Which would help in the long run.

As it currently stands humanity would be doomed. Maybe humanity in another 100 years could work something out.

Ideally whatever mysterious force that sets this into motion also give humanity some sort of out.

>>52453892
>Holy Christ you guys are soft as fuck pessimists. Don't you remember what it was like to believe in man as a heroic achiever of seemingly impossible obstacles? I need some HFY mentality. Yes I completely understand that this is death for 99.99% of humanity, but come on. You're telling me that there is literally zero chance for any group of people to make it with even a century of prep time.

Pessimistic? Yes

Soft? No.

Mathematically a chance exists that somehow a series of correct events and actions will occur that allows an individual to survive this scenario.

However that chances become even more miniscule each individual beyond the first you are expecting to survive.

To have a suitable population pool to continue human existence at the necessary development levels of education and sustainability would make this probability so small that calculating it would take more than the century you have.

Your argument also assumes that 100 years of planning and prep would be done so in complete harmony and unison between the peoples of Earth. Which in itself is statistically tiny.

The hard reality is this is a no-win situation. Humanity ends, either abruptly or drags out a few more years (if it's lucky) and ends.

File: judge.png (25KB, 255x174px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 255x174px

>>52453892
>burn oxygen
>to generate electricity
>to create light
>to grow plants
>to create oxygen

>>52454177
>Your argument also assumes that 100 years of planning and prep would be done so in complete harmony and unison between the peoples of Earth. Which in itself is statistically tiny.

Yeah. This is pretty much the hardest part to deal with.

With a hundred years, humanity might come up with a way to keep a small portion of the population alive in this event.

But it would require all humanity to be on the same page and work together knowing that 95%+ of them are doomed.

File: 1486604128859.jpg (23KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x405px

>>52454227
dude. you're a fucking idiot.
First of all. Neither coal nor gasoline need oxygen to burn.
Second, if we were burning them, it would be for the additional need of their warmth, as well as their electricity and light.
Third, the purpose of growing plants is to eat them, not create oxygen. The sun going away doesn't get rid of all the oxygen already here, you fucking mongo.
Fourth, we could just use nuclear fuel if we needed, not burn fossil fuels.

>>52454177
>>52454270
>Your argument also assumes that 100 years of planning and prep would be done so in complete harmony and unison between the peoples of Earth
No it doesn't you fucking retard. Why do some guys in Colorado need the consent of the Peruvians or the Saudis to start trying to save themselves. Every group could try to save themselves independently. In fact this is best, because it increases not only the number separate attempts to survive, but increases the variability of their methods, and increasing the odds that some will get lucky.

>>52454270
It's not even the first of your problems.

By OP's own description in some form we get 'knocked' out of orbit from the sun. The forces required to do this would annihilate the planet.

Even if we just 'floated' away as it were and ignore the effect of the forces on the planet then the environmental impact alone kills most of humanity within a few years anyway.

If we somehow get over that we then need to deal with all plant life dying out and the world suffocating.

Having solved that we then need to keep making incredible scientific discoveries within a 100 year time period as earth freezes over, civilization collapses and the population and resources dies out.

If we manage to conquer that we somehow need to manage who gets to leave.

We then also need to launch the craft successfully.

We then need to either travel to and make Mars Habitable or have developed the ability to travel for 14 years at the speed light to Wolf 1061c and hope its habitable.

Even after that the chances of survival are tiny.

And these are the only 'big' issues off the top of my head. There are literally so many more that 100 years would mean dick all in addressing them.

>>52454717
>No it doesn't you fucking retard.
It does. You're not going to build a sustainable colony without nuclear power.
Two random guys in Colorado aren't going to be able to enrich uranium by themselves.

If you think governments are going to just hand out fissionable material and plans for DIY nuclear reactors, you're mad.

>>52454722
>The forces required to do this would annihilate the planet.
I'd thought about that too, but assumed it was hand-waved, the same as whatever mysterious force is turning inhabited worlds into exo-planets.

Everything else is all just the same problem. You've got a clock, and when the clock counts down, the earth is going to be suddenly less habitable than any random rock in our solar system.

>>52454717
>Being this retarded

Okay

>>52453892
You are an idiot if you think this scenario is in any way survivable. There is a near zero chance of Humanity even managing to come together to figure a way out of this, even with forewarning. Especially with our innate nature to distrust and try to disprove everything. By the time people start getting their heads out of their asses, and realize that this is actually happening, it will be far, far too late to do anything. We also don't possess any of the means to burn those fossil fuels you seem to so love, when the fucking atmosphere will disappear completely in likely a year tops, if humanity can even last that long. This scenario is completely and utterly unsurvivable.

>>52452971
Could probably get like a few dozen people in a bunker powered by a nuclear reactor to survive for a few millenia, assuming population control was in place and everything was both automated and extremely robust. Wouldn't take 100 years to accomplish that.

But humanity as a coherent entity would be totally fucked, yeah.

File: Space Costanza.jpg (6KB, 165x115px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 165x115px

>>52455262
>when the fucking atmosphere will disappear completely in likely a year tops
source for this? Why would our atmosphere just disappear? Its kept here by our own gravity, not the gravity of the sun. If you mean that eventually the air will cool to the point it precipitates, then you still have plenty of oxygen, it's just in a different form, and needs to be melted before we can use it. With enough fossil fuels or nuclear power, we can do this as well.

Also what's your problem with burning fossil fuels, are you worried about the ice caps melting in this scenario, you faggot.

not that it matters since, I fully expect that this colony will need to be in some underground insulated facility, completely cut off from the outside atmosphere, with its own vast greenhouses needed to grow food, in effect making them CO2:Oxygen neutral. The only ways back to the surface would have to be by series of insulated airlocks, to possibly survive the absolute cold, by preserving any generated heat as much as possible. Forays made to the surface in insulated suits with their own heaters.

>>52454911
So the U.S. government, the U.K. government, the French government, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Indian government, the Pakistani government, the Iranian government, the Israeli government, and any other group that these groups trust enough to supply reactor grade uranium to (which is a lot of countries and corporations already, without the worry of human extinction in sight) all make their own efforts to survive the loss of the sun either by themselves or by collaborating, and you think that no matter what, they could never succeed, cuz hoomans r 2 stoopid too surbive.

Why is everyone in this thread such an unimaginative pessimist, faggot?

>>52452070
How fast are we moving? Meters per year or gigameters per day? Too fast, and we have no time to prepare (and we die).

Earth is +/- 1 AU from the sun.
Ceres is +/- 2.7 AU from the sun, and has temperatures of roughly −38 °C (Mt. Everest peak is about the same).

Earth can move +/- twice as far from the sun with things still being livable (temperature wise).

I'd say the biggest dangers would be from weather rather then temperature.

>Could humanity find a way to survive this scenario without the warming light of the Sun?
Yes. Humans are stubborn sons of a bitches. A lot of us will die, but humanity will live on (assuming we have time to prepare).

>Could some part of humanity survive on the warmth, energy, and light of other fuels, maybe in massive underground warrens?
Yes, underwater/ice is also a possibility.

>How long till all traditional fossil fuels run out?
AFAIK nobody knows the total amount remaining, impossible to say.

>Could we even manage to survive long enough to acquire them?
Depends, on how much time we have.

>What if we had a decade of forewarning?
Likely.

>A century?
Easily.