The future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way.

[Arminius]

What about the future of our Sun, its planets, and our Milky Way?

The following questions are examples (so you may add other questions):

Will our Sun become a "red giant" and later a "white dwarf"? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the planets Mercury, Venus, and probably also our planet, the Earth, be "eaten" by our Sun (having become a "red giant")? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will our planet be "kicked out" of our solar system? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way become a bigger galaxy (by eating other galaxies)? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be "eaten" by the "black hole" which is in its center? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be "eaten" by a bigger galaxy? If not: What will happen instead of that?

[MagsJ]

We may not be here to know or document it... so

[Meno_]

We may not be here to know or document it... so

The idea of future is not existent.

[Arminius]

We may not be here to know or document it... so

You mean you and me (for example)? If yes, then you are probably right. But maybe other humans who have become cyborgs (transhumans) will be capable of living for ever.

[Arminius]

Mark Morris said:

"Well, there’s every expectation that in about 5 billion more years, that our sun will swell up to become a red giant. And then, as it gets larger and larger, it will eventually become what’s called an asymptotic giant branch star – a star whose radius is just under the distance between the sun and the Earth – one astronomical unit in size. So the Earth will be literally skimming the surface of the red giant sun when it’s an asymptotic giant branch star.

A star that big is also cool because they’re cold – red hot versus blue hot or yellow hot like our sun. Because it’s cold, a red giant star at its surface layers can keep all of its elements in the gas phase. So some of the heavier elements – the metals and the silicates – condense out as small dust grains, and when these elements condense out as solids, then radiation pressure from this very luminous giant star pushes the dust grains out. That may seem like a minor issue, but in fact these dust grains carry the gas with them. And so the star literally expels its atmosphere, and goes from a red giant star to a white dwarf, when finally the core of the star is exposed. Now, as it’s doing this, that hot core of the star is still very luminous and lights up through a fluorescent process, this out-flowing envelope, this atmosphere that was once a star, and that’s what produces these beautiful displays that are called planetary nebulae.

Now, planetary nebulae can be these beautiful round, spherical objects, or they can be bipolar, which is one of the mysteries that we’re working here is trying to understand why, at some stage, a star suddenly becomes axisymmetric – in other words, is sending out is’s atmosphere in two diametrically opposed directions predominantly, rather than continuing to lose mass spherically.

We can’t invoke rotation of the star – that would be one way to get a preferred axis, but stars don’t rotate fast enough. If you take the sun and let it expand to become a red giant, then by the conservation of angular momentum, it literally won’t be spinning at all. It’ll be spinning so slowly that it’ll literally have no effect. So we can’t invoke spin, so there must be something going on deep down inside the star, that when you finally expose some rapidly spinning core, it can have an effect.

Or, all of the stars that we see as planetary nebula can have binary companions, that could be massive planets or relatively low mass stars that themselves can impose an angular momentum orientation on the system. This is in fact an idea that I’ve been championing for decades now, and it has some traction. There’s a lot of planetary nebula nuclei, the white dwarves, that seem to have companions near them that are suspect for having been responsible for helping strip the atmosphere of the mass-losing red giant star but also providing a preferred axis along which the ejected matter can flow."

One billion to two billion years in the future, the increase in solar radiation caused by the helium build-up at the core of the Sun will result in the loss of the oceans and the cessation of continental drift. Four billion years from now, the increase in the Earth's surface temperature will cause a bad greenhouse effect. By that point, most if not all the life on the Earth will be gone. The most likely fate of the planet is being destroyed by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded to cross the planet's orbit. ....

When the Sun first became a main sequence star, it radiated only 70% of the current luminosity. The luminosity has increased in a nearly linear fashion to the present, increasing by 1% every 110 million years. In three billion years the Sun is expected to be 33% more luminous. The hydrogen fuel at the core will finally be limited in 4.8 billion years, when the Sun will be 67% more luminous than at present. Thereafter the Sun will continue to burn hydrogen in a shell surrounding its core, until the increase in luminosity reaches 121% of the present value. This marks the end of the Sun's main sequence lifetime, and thereafter it will be into a red giant.

habitable_zone_according_to_the_luminosity_of_the_sun.png (30.23 KiB) Viewed 3531 times

„According to a team of astronomers, Andromeda Galaxy will consume our Milky Way Galaxy approximately five billion years from now. ....

The Milky Way has actually cannibalized smaller galaxies in the past. It has been a long time since the Milky Way has merged with another large galaxy, but astronomers note that you can still see remnants of all the old galaxies we’ve cannibalized. However, the Milky Way will do a little more consuming of its own before the Andromeda Galaxy has a chance to take a bite at it.

Dr. Robotham discussed the consuming of galaxies by the Milky Way ....

'We’re also going to eat two nearby dwarf galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, in about four billion years.'

It is believed that Milky Way galaxy will grow bigger in nearly four billion years by consuming two dwarf galaxies nearby- the Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds. After the Milky Way does its consuming, the Andromeda Galaxy will then eat up the Milky Way, because it is more massive even after the Milky Way consumers its nearby smaller galaxies.

Scientists do point out that the process takes billions of years. Therefore, it will be around four billion years before the Milky Way begins consuming its neighbors, and another billion years after that before it comes into contact with the massive Andromeda Galaxy.

Astronomers believe that the process of larger galaxies consuming smaller galaxies will keep happening until a few very large galaxies remain in the universe. They said the process will take a long time to happen, and is billions of years in our future.

[MagsJ]

Earth will be barren by then, so it will not matter when our sun goes through its imminent evolution.

[Amorphos]

If you can live 'forever' then it doesn't matter what happens to our galaxy. I estimate there are probably around 1 or 2 planets with intelligent life + at some point + in any given average sized galaxy. The longer the universe goes on, the higher the proportion of those intelligent species that will make it to that stage – living very long lives. Eventually there will be tones of humanoids and maybe other types, and they will all be able to communicate and move to any x,y,z, spatial location virtually instantly. The size and distances involved wont mean anything, so when this planet > galaxy e.g. ends up inside its own black hole or something, you just move elsewhere.
The actual length of the universe in time is probably denumerable? Even if we lasted millions or billions of years, that wont touch its full duration.

I think this could begin within 10 years, no its not quite out of range.

I question the ethic of living endlessly though, because I think we become out of touch and have increasingly less of the youthful inspiration and what have you. Perhaps death is a natural part of our cycles as well as its [natures]?

[Arminius]

Earth will be barren by then, so it will not matter when our sun goes through its imminent evolution.

It will not matter to us - but probably to others.

When that critical time will come nearer and nearer, there will probably still be living beings or living being successors like androids.

Compare: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562 .

[Arminius]

If you can live 'forever' then it doesn't matter what happens to our galaxy. I estimate there are probably around 1 or 2 planets with intelligent life + at some point + in any given average sized galaxy. The longer the universe goes on, the higher the proportion of those intelligent species that will make it to that stage – living very long lives. Eventually there will be tones of humanoids and maybe other types, and they will all be able to communicate and move to any x,y,z, spatial location virtually instantly. The size and distances involved wont mean anything, so when this planet > galaxy e.g. ends up inside its own black hole or something, you just move elsewhere.
The actual length of the universe in time is probably denumerable? Even if we lasted millions or billions of years, that wont touch its full duration.

I think this could begin within 10 years, no its not quite out of range.

I question the ethic of living endlessly though, because I think we become out of touch and have increasingly less of the youthful inspiration and what have you. Perhaps death is a natural part of our cycles as well as its [natures]?

Deathlessness is a natural phenomenon. So if humans or their successors will have become capable of living forever, then they will have reached a natural goal via culture / art. This shows that all development is probably cyclic or helical.

[James S Saint]

If you can live 'forever' then it doesn't matter what happens to our galaxy. I estimate there are probably around 1 or 2 planets with intelligent life + at some point + in any given average sized galaxy. The longer the universe goes on, the higher the proportion of those intelligent species that will make it to that stage – living very long lives. Eventually there will be tones of humanoids and maybe other types, and they will all be able to communicate and move to any x,y,z, spatial location virtually instantly. The size and distances involved wont mean anything, so when this planet > galaxy e.g. ends up inside its own black hole or something, you just move elsewhere.
The actual length of the universe in time is probably denumerable? Even if we lasted millions or billions of years, that wont touch its full duration.

I think this could begin within 10 years, no its not quite out of range.

I question the ethic of living endlessly though, because I think we become out of touch and have increasingly less of the youthful inspiration and what have you. Perhaps death is a natural part of our cycles as well as its [natures]?

Deathlessness is a natural phenomenon. So if humans or their successors will have become capable of living forever, then they will have reached a natural goal via culture / art. This shows that all development is probably cyclic or helical.

Or isolated.

[MagsJ]

You both say with such certainty that humans (in whatever future form) will be around to have to deal with our sun's/our galaxy's transformation. I am not saying that we won't be, but there is a possibility that we won't be... are you allowing for contingencies?

Of course.. it would be amazing if humans reach that point in time.. just that we won't be there to witness it

[Arminius]

You both say with such certainty that humans (in whatever future form) will be around to have to deal with our sun's/our galaxy's transformation. I am not saying that we won't be, but there is a possibility that we won't be... are you allowing for contingencies?

Of course.. it would be amazing if humans reach that point in time.. just that we won't be there to witness it

But I am (we both are) not saying with such certainty that humans will be around.

[Arminius]

If you can live 'forever' then it doesn't matter what happens to our galaxy. I estimate there are probably around 1 or 2 planets with intelligent life + at some point + in any given average sized galaxy. The longer the universe goes on, the higher the proportion of those intelligent species that will make it to that stage – living very long lives. Eventually there will be tones of humanoids and maybe other types, and they will all be able to communicate and move to any x,y,z, spatial location virtually instantly. The size and distances involved wont mean anything, so when this planet > galaxy e.g. ends up inside its own black hole or something, you just move elsewhere.
The actual length of the universe in time is probably denumerable? Even if we lasted millions or billions of years, that wont touch its full duration.

I think this could begin within 10 years, no its not quite out of range.

I question the ethic of living endlessly though, because I think we become out of touch and have increasingly less of the youthful inspiration and what have you. Perhaps death is a natural part of our cycles as well as its [natures]?

Deathlessness is a natural phenomenon. So if humans or their successors will have become capable of living forever, then they will have reached a natural goal via culture / art. This shows that all development is probably cyclic or helical.

Or isolated.

Isolated from what?

[Amorphos]

humans will change even if it were the same humans imho. but I think what Arminius is suggesting, is that there is something about nature which returns to successful ideas. to wit I concur, and I think humanoids have probably existed for as long as life somewhere has been around for long enough for evolution to arrive at humanoids.

[James S Saint]

Isolated from what?

Each other.

Since life has existed in the universe throughout an infinite past, it is apparent that life doesn't ever actually fill the universe. And that means that either life is only short lived in every case or that life spreads too slowly to fill space even given an infinity of time (which is a real possibility because space is more vast than time).

The more demanding life becomes to avoid death, the more restrained life becomes so as to achieve such a goal. So if life ever achieved total immortality, it must be adhering to exactly what is required to do so and those rules might require it to be so efficient, that it simply can't ever afford to go haplessly gallivanting across the galaxy. In order to stay alive, it must stay confined. And such confinement might be so very far from other civilizations throughout the universe that none ever get to encounter the others without risk of complete annihilation of their own critical resources.

So again, the options are:

A) ALL life is limited in duration
B) Immortal life is confined to isolation from others

[Arminius]

Isolated from what?

Each other.

Since life has existed in the universe throughout an infinite past, it is apparent that life doesn't ever actually fill the universe. And that means that either life is only short lived in every case or that life spreads too slowly to fill space even given an infinity of time (which is a real possibility because space is more vast than time).

The more demanding life becomes to avoid death, the more restrained life becomes so as to achieve such a goal. So if life ever achieved total immortality, it must be adhering to exactly what is required to do so and those rules might require it to be so efficient, that it simply can't ever afford to go haplessly gallivanting across the galaxy. In order to stay alive, it must stay confined. And such confinement might be so very far from other civilizations throughout the universe that none ever get to encounter the others without risk of complete annihilation of their own critical resources.

So again, the options are:

A) ALL life is limited in duration
B) Immortal life is confined to isolation from others

But if "immortal life is confined to isolation from others", then this means that "others" also exist, and if this "others" are also living beings, then it does additonally mean that "immortal life is confined to isolation from" other life (thus: mortal life).

[MagsJ]

The future could well be like The Cities Of Gold cartoon.. which mixed ancient with futuristic ideals of what a future could look like.

it's not Cities Of Gold.. I forget which cartoon it is, but in any case.. they were battling the universe..

[Arminius]

You need sunglasses? - No.



- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGtX_h5ht6k.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Sunglasses?

Actually, it would look like this. Because you'd be dead.

[Arminius]

You? In more than seven billion years?

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

You? In more than seven billion years?

I hope so.
I'm talking about Heaven itself. And when I get there it's AJ's hot applejack legs spread wide open, with her giant glistening 10 inch clit throbbing in marvelous, strong, noble, applebucking glory.

[Arminius]

Good luck!



- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_94W9hndtR.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

[surreptitious57]

That figure is a bit out since it is actually closer to five billion years

[Arminius]

Words like "life" and "birth" should not be used for the Sun.

The phase of the "white dwarf" will be followed by the phase of the "black dwarf" (is not considered in the picture).