If the Sun was a class "O" star and thus appears "blue", then I think there would be no life on Earth to ask the question. Our star - the Sun - is a class G2 star and has a temperature range of around 5,500 kelvin whereas an "O" star is > 30,000 kelvin.
If the Universe was shrinking the galaxies would appear to be moving towards the Earth, and look more blue than they should. This is the opposite to the universe expanding where galaxies would appear to be moving away from the Earth, which we know due to "red shift". Andromeda would be the exception since it's directly moving towards the Milky Way.
A "light year" is a measure of distance, derived from "how far light can travel in one Earth year". Thus, if you shine a torch for the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun exactly once, that light would have travelled the distance of a "light year".
If the earth was not tilted at an angle of 23.5 degrees, there would not be the different seasons.
No; according to Einstein it should take time for light to reach earth from the sun. Light is not instantaneous. The trip takes about 8 minutes. You may be confusing this with the theoretical result that if you were able to accelerate to the speed of light (you cannot) then for you, time would stop passing. You'd still be traveling at light speed, but you would have no experience of the passage of time. If you attained light speed and maintained it for 1000 years as observed from earth, you would decelerate to find that 1000 years just passed by on earth, as if in an instant, and you would find yourself very, very far from where you were only a moment before (from your point of view). This goes against what our intuition tells us about time; it is a 'relativistic' effect. And by the way, you would not have aged a moment over the thousand earth years you spent at light speed.
we will not have seasons
The stars would be brighter points of light. Without the Earth's rotation, the Earth would not be moving enough to create the lines of light that ordinarily appear in an uncorrected stationary time exposure. Depending on the clarity of the sky, the entire image could be grayed by scattered light (light pollution).
The stars would be brighter points of light. Without the Earth's rotation, the Earth would not be moving enough to create the lines of light that ordinarily appear in an uncorrected stationary time exposure. Depending on the clarity of the sky, the entire image could be grayed by scattered light (light pollution).
The sun produces natural light and would kill us if we came near it, we would burn. Whereas Earth receives light from the sun.
it would appear black because no red light strikes it
In 365 and 1/4 days, the earth completes one revolution around the sun.
it would still appear to rotate
it would still appear to rotate
it would appear black.
No. We would be unable to detect it but you can detect black holes(by xrays and light emmitted from material they are sucking up). You would be unable to detect it because if the two were moving away at a combined speed greater than that of light then light from the star could never reach the earth.
It's all to do with the wavelength of light and the density of the Earth's atmosphere. During a lunar eclipse, some light from the Sun is refracted through the Earth's atmosphere, which allows it to bend around the Earth and reach the Moon. The atmosphere is a well-known filter of blue light (this is why the sky is blue); only long wavelengths can pass through the atmosphere at the angle between the Earth, Sun and Moon, the others get trapped in the atmosphere. Therefore, the Moon is only exposed to red light. If the atmosphere was a different density then the Moon would appear a different colour.
it would appear black.
Not much different. It probably would just have this green-ish tint to it.