Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Say Dying Sun Will Engulf Earth

iamlucky13 writes "A minor academic debate among astronomers is the final fate of the earth. As the sun ages and enters the red giant stage of its life, it will heat up, making the earth inhospitable. It will also expand, driven by helium fusion so that its outer layers reach past the earth's current orbit. Previously it had been believed that the sun would lose enough mass to allow earth to escape to a more distant orbit, lifeless but intact. However, new calculations, which take into account tidal forces and drag from mass shed by the sun, suggest that the earth will have sufficiently slowed in that time to be dragged down to its utter destruction in 7.6 billion years. "

343 comments

  1. Global Warming by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow...talk about global warming!

    --
    No Sigs!
    1. Re:Global Warming by __NR_kill · · Score: 1

      can't wait to outlive them to prove it wrong..

    2. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The real problem as I see it is that Al Gore is going to expand to be so big that he engulfs the earth.

    3. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... we better jack up the prices of all our consumer goods to prevent the earth from... over heating.

    4. Re:Global Warming by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought the galaxy was going to be engulfed by a hydrogen cloud in 40 million years?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    5. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Funny? Maybe if you had said he's full of so much hot air that would work...

    6. Re:Global Warming by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Yet I bet they will find a way to twist it to make it seem like it is our fault.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Global Warming by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      I learned this in 6th grade. I'm now 28 years old. timeline.jpg anyone?

      How is this all over the news?

    8. Re:Global Warming by y86 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

      Same here. How come these geniuses can't figure out something we learned YEARS ago. What, they didn't think our sun would follow the lifecycle defined for all stars?

      They must be catholic.

    9. Re:Global Warming by Enlil · · Score: 1

      Intriguing, could anyone provide a little more detail?

    10. Re:Global Warming by ohmpossum · · Score: 1

      Homer Simpson: uhuhuhuhuhuh roasted Mars mellows

      --
      Just set me up a basic sig... 10 PRINT "Gordon Aplin" : GOTO 10
  2. Ah well... by QJimbo · · Score: 2, Informative

    All good things...

    1. Re:Ah well... by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we do decide to revive the sun by sending a payload of quantum sparkles, I suggest not sending a religious nut-job who is obsessed with sunlight.

      My 2c.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Ah well... by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      Yah, all good things.. especially Titan's tropical beaches.... (by that time)

    3. Re:Ah well... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      But Humans are SUPERIOR!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Ah well... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 5, Funny

      My 2c. You can't go faster than 1c.

      (/stupid misunderstanding nitpick)
    5. Re:Ah well... by Tsoat · · Score: 1

      yeah those types of people have a habit of turning out to be monsters

    6. Re:Ah well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just when the Earth was about to die, God said "Let there be light..." and BOOM!!! all calculations were proved wrong.

    7. Re:Ah well... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You may think of it as all good things coming to an end.

      I think of it as my brilliant master plan to destroy the earth coming to fruition!

      Most evil geniuses just don't have the stones to think in the truly long term.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. I don't believe it. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    I'm going to hold my breath to prove it. Check this thread in 100 years for an update.

    1. Re:I don't believe it. by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      spoiler alert! We're gonna suck ourselves into an artificial black hole by then. Either that or break an atomic particle in half or something and create a super bomb that cracks Earth in half. Or maybe we'll accidentally teleport the planet someone with a wormhole. Or maybe we'll accidentally create two Earths in a quantum experiment accident and it will collide with the moon and bounce it into us. I mean come on, think about how high the odds are that in a couple million years (more like a couple hundred) someone will do something crazy or stupid and destroy the entire planet. A thousand years ago we were lucky we could crack a rock in half with technology. Now we can level a city. I don't wanna know what we'll do in the future but I'm sure we won't make it to supernova time.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    2. Re:I don't believe it. by icedcool · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nonsense. All testing is done by capable and brilliant scientists, now back to my experiment.

      Uh, it's probably not a problem, probably, but I'm showing a small discrepancy in... well, no, it's well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining sequence.

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
    3. Re:I don't believe it. by Golden+Section · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > someone will do something crazy or stupid and destroy the entire planet.

      Panel member: If you were to meet these Vegans, and were permitted only one question to ask of them, what would it be?

      Ellie Arroway: Well, I suppose it would be, how did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    4. Re:I don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Look we (well most of us, anyway) survived Crisis on Infinite Earths so what are you blathering about? What could go wrong?

    5. Re:I don't believe it. by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      Oh shoot, on the way to my computer the page collided with a high energy cosmic ray and created an antipage where there's a comic book series with infinite issues all about 12 Earths instead of the opposite. And then it reacted with a normal page in my cache and blew my computer up from the energy and Earth along with it (see, you knew where this was going hehehe). But seriously, when we invent antimatter, it gives off 4 magnitudes more energy per gram than a fusion nuke. We're gonna put a hole in some country when that happens.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    6. Re:I don't believe it. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I think we'll re-arrange the planets into a Kemplerer Rosette and head out toward the galactic rim, myself. We won't need a sun by then, even if we do replace RV's with stepping discs.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    7. Re:I don't believe it. by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      This sort-of reminds me of an episode of Star Trek DS9 where a bunch of really intelligent humans calculated that the end of the universe was a billion years away. Frantic, they tried to save the universe. But in the end, they finally thought it to not be worth it since it was such a long way off.

      Similarly, why would we worry about the Earth being engulfed by plasma when the seas, lakes, streams will have boiled-off long before that?

      --
      The game.
    8. Re:I don't believe it. by esocid · · Score: 1

      Nice HL quote. I had to think about where I had heard that before.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    9. Re:I don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the end result of your experiment is going to be but I'll wager that this guy is gonna get screwed somehow ;) He really should have called in sick this morning.....

    10. Re:I don't believe it. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you haven't been told the dark secret about stepping disks, they run on diesel fuel and get 13 miles per gallon city, 18 miles per gallon for long jumps. And don't complain about this, the inventors will just turn their back on you and kick you hard in the nuts.

    11. Re:I don't believe it. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Panel member: If you were to meet these Vegans, and were permitted only one question to ask of them, what would it be?

      Ellie Arroway: Well, I suppose it would be, how did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?

      And their answer? "The hard part was teaching our most respected scientists how to count to one."

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:I don't believe it. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I'd expect an Outsider to think like that.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    13. Re:I don't believe it. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "This sort-of reminds me of an episode of Star Trek DS9 where a bunch of really intelligent humans calculated that the end of the universe was a billion years away. Frantic, they tried to save the universe. But in the end, they finally thought it to not be worth it since it was such a long way off."

      Agreed. Besides, man went from first flight to the moon within 70 years, can you imagine where we'll be in just 1,000 years, much less 7.6 billion years??

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  4. Maybe by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

    But maybe replicating space organisms that live in the Oort cloud will come and put a protective membrane around the Earth before then slowing down the passage of time on Earth in relation to the rest of the galaxy so we can be united with other sentient beings in worlds connected to our own by giant arches poking out of the sea.

    Ahh, Robert Charles Wilson, you Spin me right round.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. Last post by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heck, 7.6 billion years is ok by me; Chun the unavoidable will have been at my elbow by then.

    1. Re:Last post by SL+Baur · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heck, 7.6 billion years is ok by me I don't know. It'll probably happen a few months before Duke Nukem Forever is released. Dang, I was wishing I could play that game.
    2. Re:Last post by nanogiga · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, in 2 billion years the moon will have moved away from the earth far enough that it can no longer stabilize the earths rotation axis. This will cause the axis to move much more than it does today, so it may from time to time point to the sun, continually heating up one half to death and letting the other half freeze to death.

      So by then there will already be no more life on earth. Unless we can capture the moon with a lasso by that time.

    3. Re:Last post by mrops · · Score: 1

      Fortunately humanity would have learned to ascend long before that.

    4. Re:Last post by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      Since this will be a very gradual, humans will adapt to such heat.

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    5. Re:Last post by ZeroFactorial · · Score: 1

      If you believe the fundamentalist creationists, that's only 7 days from now!

      WE'RE ALL DEAD IN A WEEK!! AHHHHH!!!!!!

      Obligatory: I, for one, welcome our new life-consuming, flaming gas overlords.

    6. Re:Last post by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      Except that, in a nod to the fact that the sun is a fusion reactor, they will have changed the name to "Duke Thermonukem Forever" as a publicity stunt to distract people from the additional delay.

    7. Re:Last post by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Saves me from the y1m and y1b bugs I was worried about.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    8. Re:Last post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      lolol

    9. Re:Last post by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure. If our level of technology stays atleast at a level where we are today, the response when the Earth starts heating up will be to turn up the A/C. Humans are not going to adapt to new conditions if they change their living environments to suit what they are used to.

    10. Re:Last post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, in 50 million years, the Sun will heat up enough to literally boil the oceans and everyone had better have left by then.

      This is according to Dr. Pamela Gay of Astronomy Cast (the coolest astronomer EVER). See her correction at

      http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-30-the-sun-spots-and-all/

  6. This is news? by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the way I was taught it would happen on astronomy shows from the 1980s. I don't get the big deal.

    1. Re:This is news? by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      I just turned 27; my recollection of PBS science shows' take on this (specifically Nova) in the 80s was that we didn't know for sure (back then) which way things would go. Or my memory could be faulty, who knows...

    2. Re:This is news? by Nero+Nimbus · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more or less the same thing.

      It must be a slow night.

    3. Re:This is news? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      They thought for a little while that the Earth might just make it, but now it's pretty clear to everybody that's not going to happen.

    4. Re:This is news? by justinmikehunt · · Score: 0

      And indeed that's what I learned in the 90s.

    5. Re:This is news? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I remember reading an old set of Time Life books about the solar system from about 20 years ago that said said this, too. I didn't know there was any sort of debate over it. The only question I'd ever seen was whether it would be closer to six billion years form now or twelve billion years from now.

      Anyway, it's not that big of a deal. If mankind hasn't gotten over religion and ignorance long before this is a concern and then moved on and out into the rest of the galaxy, then he deserves the same fate as his home planet.

    6. Re:This is news? by abshnasko · · Score: 1

      I remember learning about this in 4th grade. Editors, I think the key word in News for Nerds is "News"

    7. Re:This is news? by MacOSXHead · · Score: 1

      I was taught this in high school in the 1970s.

      Now this is news: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm !!!!

    8. Re:This is news? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      This is the way I was taught it would happen on astronomy shows from the 1980s. I don't get the big deal.

      I read about it in a 1960's science book.

    9. Re:This is news? by beadfulthings · · Score: 5, Informative

      Carl Sagan in his 1980 pop-astronomy series "Cosmos." He was quite poetic, talking about one "last, perfect day" for Earth as we know it as the sun begins its changes. 'Twas quite a hit in its day, that series (and book).

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    10. Re:This is news? by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      Hey, that IS news.

    11. Re:This is news? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      I was taught this in high school in the 1970s. I got it in outside reading, my high school apparently wasn't as sophisticated as yours (California schools suck and the more money we seem to spend on them, the more they suck - by the time I graduated in 1980 the (new) physics teacher was asking me for help sometimes). My first thought was "When did they think this wasn't going to happen?"

      Actually, I think the moon is more likely to destroy all life on earth long before the sun goes nova and/or red giant. Because of tidal forces, the moon will gradually get farther from the earth and the earth's rotation will slow to conserve centrifugal force. As the earth's rotation slows the days get longer and hotter and the nights get longer and colder to a point where this won't be a very happy home any more.
    12. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's gone back and forth ever since they figured out the fate of the sun. Don't count these calculations as the final word, but they're more detailed than any that had been done before.

    13. Re:This is news? by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      ... whereas now we know precisely what will happen. I mean, what could possibly happen in 7.6 billion years to alter the behaviour of objects in our solar system, or our understanding of them?

      Anyway, that's how it happened in Doctor Who, so everything that goes on in the meantime is irrelevant.

    14. Re:This is news? by MacOSXHead · · Score: 1

      Funny, I graduated from high school in 1980 also. I was in high school in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

      Back to the point, the sun is going to expend its mass as fuel, expand as gravitational forces lessen, and swallow the Earth some time in the next 6-7 billion years. Give or take a lot of math that makes huge approximations.

      I am far more concerned by crap math models of global warming. If we close our minds, (say the Sun is in a quite phase, the temperature drops, and we end up fighting for food and energy) we may be not around to see if the global warming enthusiasts are correct.

      The global warming argument distracts us from the real problem. We do not know how the climate is going to be. We do know that petro-energy will become more scarce and expensive and that the population is climbing. God help us if we are really going to cool in the next 20 years.

      All wars are economic.

    15. Re:This is news? by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      So basically what they're saying is that the debate is over and there's a scientific consensus?

    16. Re:This is news? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I have no idea why this is news, I've been hearing that this is how the world will end for a long time.

    17. Re:This is news? by gravis777 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Are you new here? By the time something reaches Slashdot, its always old news. Although this may be the oldest newsstory ever posted on Slashdot, research that is decades old involving something that has been in process for billions of years. I am sure most Slashdotters are geek enough to remember this small tidbit of information from elementary school Astronomy class, or at least from Carl Sagan's Cosmos

    18. Re:This is news? by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point.. I has a children's astronomy book in 1978 that predicted it the same way..
      News Flash!, 30 year old solar predictions still predicted!

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    19. Re:This is news? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Well, some of us have checked our closets and found that we haven't a thing to wear for the occasion.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    20. Re:This is news? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Even in the previous scenario, although the Earth "made it out", it was most definitely not in habitable condition, so I don't see why anyone cares one way or the other.

    21. Re:This is news? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I can actually address this with some knowledge as I did a journal club a few years ago (when I was still in grad school) on a paper addressing this very topic.

      It's long been suspected that this would happen. Certainly everyone who studied the topic much was confident that Mercury and Venus were toast and, say, Jupiter was OK. Earth has been dodgy to predict, though, it's right on the boundary of where the Sun will expand to during the red giant phase. Throw in the effects of changing dynamics (mass loss from the Sun, torques on Earth, etc.) leading to orbit changes, it all came down to the precise model you used for stellar evolution. As I recall, the paper I looked at about 3-5 years ago examined 10 models and found somewhere around half (60% seems to ring a bell) lead to Earth's obliteration.

      So although astronomy shows may have presented it as known fact in the early 1980s (certainty sells and destroying Earth is sexy), it really wasn't.

    22. Re:This is news? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      expand as gravitational forces lessen, and swallow the Earth some time in the next 6-7 billion years.
      I started to panic for a moment, I thought it was only 6-7 million.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    23. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless we move the Earth. Assuming we're still around by then.. and that we still want the Earth.

    24. Re:This is news? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think that "just making it" meant that "the solar flares won't quite touch the surface of the earth."

      I was always under the impression that it would only take a relatively small expansion of the sun to boil off our atmosphere and beautiful women.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  7. quote time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spaceballs?

    Oh shit, there goes the planet!

  8. Interesting Note by bendodge · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (Wow! All my karma just went sailing past!)
    --
    The government can't save you.
    1. Re:Interesting Note by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know why your karma would suffer from this... there are some interesting parallels between theories concerning the technological singularity and the Biblical book of Revelation (at least in some peoples' opinions). Why not add another metaphorical spin to things?

    2. Re:Interesting Note by benthurston27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "will come as a thief in the night" seems to suggest some element of surprise but several billion years of advance warning seems sufficient to not be surprised. But on another note is this what particularly morbid scientists do with their intellectual time or does it just seem that way to me?

    3. Re:Interesting Note by maop · · Score: 1

      Why bring up crack pot theories?

    4. Re:Interesting Note by superslacker87 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know why your karma would suffer from this... there are some interesting parallels between theories concerning the technological singularity and the Biblical book of Revelation (at least in some peoples' opinions). Why not add another metaphorical spin to things? Well, for one thing, it's not the Book of Revelation, it's 2 Peter 3:10, but I digress.
      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
    5. Re:Interesting Note by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Which, the Singularity or the Book of Revelations?

      First one is an interesting theory awaiting proof. The second is just wishful thinking of vengeful whackjobs.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:Interesting Note by KillerCow · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. /no seriously, I'd like a link

    7. Re:Interesting Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bible is about as vague as a Sylvia Brown "reading". The "information" in it can be twisted to fit just about any outcome.

    8. Re:Interesting Note by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      You can draw parallels between any two stories at all. People are great at seeing patterns that aren't there.

      Pick any two stories, and I'll show parallels between them.

    9. Re:Interesting Note by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      This sounds fun.. Arabian Nights and Lord of the rings.. GO!

    10. Re:Interesting Note by maop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your theory that Revelations has anything to do with reality. Stop comparing fiction to real life. You are playing into the hands of the crazy people who actually believe in the bullshit of the Bible.

    11. Re:Interesting Note by dpilot · · Score: 1

      How can anyone be claiming to talk about crackpot theories like this without adding TimeCube?

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    12. Re:Interesting Note by Aenoxi · · Score: 1

      Erm, "Orc" is an anagram of "Roc" maybe?

      --
      "The sum of all knowledge does not imply the knowledge of all sums" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased)
    13. Re:Interesting Note by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      The author of the Lord of the rings was clearly thinking of Arabian nights when he wrote his book. He wrote much of it during World War 2 when death and destruction was all around him. It was no surprise that he would have found comfort in a series of books whose common underlying theme was the sparing of the wife who had sinned against the ruler.
      The interwinning of the Indian, Persian, Egyptian, and Arab cultures that make up the Arabian Nights stories has clearly struck Tolkein and influenced him into creating his own stories of intertwining cultures of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs.

      Where the Arabian nights has powerful magical items such as the magical lamp, Tolkien has changed this into a powerful magical ring. But the quests, goals, strong ethical undertones, etc. have all remained.

      bah I'm bored now. I don't know much about the Arabian nights. I don't think i've read many of them.

    14. Re:Interesting Note by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      "will come as a thief in the night" seems to suggest some element of surprise but several billion years of advance warning seems sufficient to not be surprised.
      I think that is the point. While we're fat and happy knowing that the Earth won't be destroyed for billions of years, we get blindsided by a different apocalyptic event.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Interesting Note by slapout · · Score: 1

      Really? Have you ever tried reading it?

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    16. Re:Interesting Note by maop · · Score: 1

      Your theory that Revelations has anything to do with reality. Stop comparing fiction to real life. You are playing into the hands of the crazy people who actually believe in the bullshit of the Bible.

  9. Come on... by The+Ancients · · Score: 1

    As long as I've been alive, this has been pretty much the inevitable conclusion. Was there a turnaround in the cocaine infested 80s perhaps that we missed, or have since forgotten?

    By the way, this is even in New Zealand, waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the globe (not far enough down that we'd be safe from this, however)

    1. Re:Come on... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      No, it is the cocaine induced renaissance, after the pot induced dark ages.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Come on... by Cecil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only by laypeople, as far as I know. For as long as I can remember in modern astronomy, it's been thought that the Earth (as in the big hunk of rock, not any of its fancy accessories like say, life, or water... minor but important point there) would actually survive, barely. Scientists generally believed the mass loss from the inflating, overpressured sun losing its grip on its outer atmosphere would be sufficient to allow Earth to escape destruction as its orbit would be slowly spiralling outwards while the sun lost mass. It would still ultimately end up being far too close to the inflated sun not to be burnt to a crisp, but the rocky body of the planet itself would survive. Now it turns out the drag from all that mass being lost would be enough to slow the Earth's orbit down to the point where it would indeed be consumed.

  10. Uhhh, this isn't news by JimboFBX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't news at all, in fact I haven't heard anyone say it would happen any other way. I think I have a "My First Picture Book of the Planets" that says the same thing.

    1. Re:Uhhh, this isn't news by Scotland+Tom · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've been seeing this exact projection on the Science and Discovery channels for years now. I wasn't even aware there was a competing theory.

    2. Re:Uhhh, this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think I have a "My First Picture Book of the Planets" that says the same thing.

      Yes that old childhood science fav- from the publishers of "Garsh Ma, My DNA Made Me Do It!", "The Wondrous Tale of Mr. E. Coli (And Other Gastro-Intestinal Stories)," and "Heat Death! Why Nothing You Do Really Matters".

    3. Re:Uhhh, this isn't news by WotTheFrog · · Score: 1

      Of course there's a competing theory. It's in Revelations, and 2 Peter and loads of other places in the bible. The National Union for Truth in Science (NUTS), have decided to press for all school astronomy books to bear a notice warning that the theory about the earth's being swallowed up by the sun in 7.6 billion years is only one theory and that "Hell and Damnation" is another, equally valid, theory that should be taught in parrallel. School Boards in Kansas are, apparently, already working on a suitable text.

    4. Re:Uhhh, this isn't news by toddestan · · Score: 1

      No, this is news because we can say it will happen with a better explanation of why. Before, it was just kind of assumed that Earth would be swallowed up by the Sun, but it became less clear when people started questioning that assumption. Though stay tuned, as I could see it going the other way when someone else makes a new model that "now takes into account X".

  11. Shit. by jerryasher · · Score: 5, Funny

    And to find this out the day I discover my paxil/zoloft/venlafaxine does nothing.

    Beer me.

    1. Re:Shit. by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like the goggles.

  12. Armageddon by gummyb34r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 7.6 bln years time frame there is a 99.9 probability of a massive object hitting Earth and melting the outermost solid shell.

    1. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 7.6 bln years time frame there is a 99.9 probability of a massive object hitting Earth and melting the outermost solid shell.

      It's certain that it will happen at least 9 times and 90% certain that it will happen 10 times? Or did you mean that there is a 99.9% probability or a .999 probability?

    2. Re:Armageddon by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 1

      I would place my wager on this happening first...
      http://www.endofworld.net/

    3. Re:Armageddon by Bega · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reminds me of this meteorite collision animation; not realistic, but interesting nonetheless.

      --

      THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
    4. Re:Armageddon by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In 7.6 bln years time frame there is a 99.9 probability of a massive object hitting Earth and melting the outermost solid shell.

      Where do you get these numbers? They appear suspect. We've gone more than half-a-billion years with *no* impact strong enough to wipe out the primary phyla of animals. That would suggest that mega-impacts are not near as likely as you say.

      True, we may be in for some nasty human-ending impacts though, but not necessarily "outer shell melting", at least not the entire shell.

    5. Re:Armageddon by BarlowBrad · · Score: 1
      And according to TFA, Earth is likely to become inhospitable even before the probability of a massive object hitting it approaches 100%.

      Regardless of whether Earth will ultimately be vaporized, as the sun heats up, our planet will become too hot to live on before then. "After a billion years or so you've got an Earth with no atmosphere, no water and a surface temperature of hundreds of degrees, way above the boiling point of water,"
    6. Re:Armageddon by lordofthechia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pffft.... don't touch those numbers, you don't want to know where the GP pulled them out of....

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    7. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!

    8. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The numbers are completely made up. We have gone for about 3.9 billion years without anything melting the Earth's crust, and the number of large objects in the Solar System that could hit the Earth is lower now than it was then. There is a chance that something will hit us and turn the surface of this planet into molten goo, but the odds are rather low.

    9. Re:Armageddon by skyshard · · Score: 1

      well...

      sun = massive object?

    10. Re:Armageddon by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Yes, his "figures" seem to strongly smell of 'out of one's butt' but there have been 5 significant mass extinctions* in the last HALF MILLION years, so at that rate, 7.6by would be 76 events.

      * note, I just read further, and they consider now to be one of those events. Your mileage and interpretations may vary.

      It's reasonable to say that with 76 mass extinctions, it's unlikely that we'd dodge every one, even with our big brains and all.

      --
      -Styopa
    11. Re:Armageddon by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      pick a longer timescale, last 4.5 billion years, there *WAS* a major impact and thus we have the moon.

    12. Re:Armageddon by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      pick a longer timescale, last 4.5 billion years, there *WAS* a major impact and thus we have the moon.

      But that was very early in the solar system's history when there were "extra" planets. There's no evidence that Mars, Venus, etc. will whack us (barring some really close-by stellar close-pass or the like).

    13. Re:Armageddon by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      who knows what it was or what its source? and who knows what is on very long orbital periods around our own sun?

    14. Re:Armageddon by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It just makes sense that as a solar system ages there will be less and less impact events over time. As you said, hogwash!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    15. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it was a lot bigger than anything that has since been identified in an earth-crossing orbit.

      We're honestly getting to the point where we think we have a handle on where the really big asteroids and comets are. Now it's just a matter of finding the medium sized one and the small ones that won't wipe out life on earth, but will still make it miserable for a spell.

    16. Re:Armageddon by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      who knows what it was or what its source?

      IIRC, simulations show that mini-planets form first and then eventually coalesce into planets.

    17. Re:Armageddon by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Instead of looking at as a massive object hitting the Earth, you might want to consider it more as the Earth hitting a very hot, very massive object in 7.6 billion years.

    18. Re:Armageddon by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      We've gone more than half-a-billion years with *no* impact strong enough to wipe out the primary phyla of animals

      Then were due.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  13. Message from 100 Years into Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm... a 7 digit user id... you must be old here.

    1. Re:Message from 100 Years into Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are we, cowards till the end!.. Well this is one way I could hope for immortality...

    2. Re:Message from 100 Years into Future by dintech · · Score: 1

      I wonder if slashdot will even be round in even 25 years time. Perhaps the internet will be replaced in much the same way that BBSs were. Please feel free to point out why this wouldn't happen...

    3. Re:Message from 100 Years into Future by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "I wonder if slashdot will even be round in even 25 years time. Perhaps the internet will be replaced in much the same way that BBSs were. Please feel free to point out why this wouldn't happen..."

      /. will be around in 25 yrs if I have anything to do about it! Might not be in the form we all recognize it as today, but it will be around. Same with many of the popular BBSs, they've gone online.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Message from 100 Years into Future by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

      It won't happen because the internet is pretty much _the_ best medium. The odds aren't good for someone developing a better medium for information transport than the internet. Or what the $bad_word should be wrong with the internet? You can avoid censorship, can encrypt your messages, can rather easily find things ... oh, wait, well, if the government decides that censorship must be absolute and that encryption is illegal, then we'll have another medium. Intranet, anyone? (Excluding idiot-accreting holes like YouTube. Reading comments on such pages isn't a wise thing to do.)

  14. Didn't realise this was debated by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Discovery Channel, History Chanel and National Channel all show the same scenario of the sun expanding to and past earth.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      I was thrown off by this as well, considering I had astronomy books that stated this about at least a decade ago.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    2. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by hardburn · · Score: 1

      And we all know how accurate those channels are.

      I gave up on the whole lot years ago when I found that when they talked about stuff I already knew about, it was often completely wrong. Naturally, I then had to wonder about the accuracy of stuff I didn't know about.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    3. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Ok mildly off topic but astronomy was probably the only geek thing I never did (for shame, here's my punch-card and badge)

      Will the gravitational pull get worse as the sun expands, will it stay the same or could we possibly be pushed (either artificially or by said sun) away from it. All these theories seem to hinge on Terra staying x miles away from point 0 at the centre of the big shiny light in the blue room. What's stopping us just moving the planet out of the way somehow (remember, in 7 billion years we're quite probably going to have the power to move planets anyway)... just curious is all...

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    4. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like is TECO or EDT the better editor? Or FORTRAN versus PL/I as the better language? Or should CPUs have built-in support for stacks or not? Or can any machine-compiled language be as efficient as hand-coded assembly? Ah, the days when men were men and coded and debugged programs through front panel switches.

    5. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I think the previous idea was that the earth would be pushed away from the sun by the gases faster than the sun expands

    6. Re:Didn't realise this was debated by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Will the gravitational pull get worse as the sun expands, will it stay the same or could we possibly be pushed (either artificially or by said sun) away from it. It can only decrease because the effect of Sun's gravity on Earth only depends on mass between Earth orbit and the center of the Sun. Sun loses mass by emitting matter into space but does not absorb much, and if it expands beyond Earth orbit, the mass outside will cancel itself. This is why there was a hypothesis that Earth orbit will expand.
      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  15. Seems easy enough. by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accelerate Earth to put it into a wider orbit. This will solve Global Warming and the Earth being swallowed all in one.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course you stole that idea from futurama.

    2. Re:Seems easy enough. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, jd is quite correct. Scientists have already been working out methods of moving the Earth should a climatic event threaten the livelihood of the human race. The Earth may be big, but there are no forces that prevent it from moving. Intentionally toss a few rocks past it, and the gravitational pull will slowly accelerate the Earth out of its current orbit.

      Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then. (Either that or evacuate our Dyson Sphere. Whichever comes first.)

    3. Re:Seems easy enough. by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      Let Chuck Norris fart in the sun's general direction.. That should do it..

    4. Re:Seems easy enough. by dragonfire5287 · · Score: 1

      Philip Jose Farmer had a book were humanity did just that, it is titled "Dark is the Sun."

    5. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO!!! We don't want a supernova explosion to happen and the universe to be destroyed!

    6. Re:Seems easy enough. by jd · · Score: 1

      Just give me a long enough lever and a place to stand and I could move the Eath. Or a Greek philosopher/scientist, or something. Though moving an ancient Greek can be difficult at times.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, in 7.6bn years, we have not figured out how to live on other worlds, then we're not worth saving and should get vaporized by the sun.

      In actuality, the human race will have long since died out by that time anyway so we're worrying about something that will have nothing to do with us.

      In fact, Earth will be a dead world billions of years before this happens. Nobody and no-thing will care when it finally gets incinerated.

    8. Re:Seems easy enough. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      In actuality, the human race will have long since died out by that time anyway so we're worrying about something that will have nothing to do with us.


      Why do you say that? Because of that y-chromosome repair fault thing?
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Seems easy enough. by Divebus · · Score: 1

      How far would we have to move out in orbit to fix the leap year thing - as in add three more days every four years to the orbit? Or would we have to add a whole new month to get out of the way? And at what point do we start running into asteroids? Listen to me... "we"... heh.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    10. Re:Seems easy enough. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then.
      Meh, by then any affection for our "original star" will be long since forgotten - just as we don't call ourselves African-Americans unless our ancestors left within the last 300 years or so.
    11. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have there been calculations as to how far the Earth's orbit would have to be moved to keep it safe? Would Mars be safe from the dying Sun?

    12. Re:Seems easy enough. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Accelerate Earth to put it into a wider orbit. This will solve Global Warming and the Earth being swallowed all in one.

      We just need to get all the robots to vent their exhausts in a single direction. We can use nuclear winter to cancel out global warming.

    13. Re:Seems easy enough. by English+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's 'Give me where to stand and I shall move the earth', isn't it? Can't remember who said it, could have been Pythagoras...

    14. Re:Seems easy enough. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Scientists have already been working out methods of moving the Earth should a climatic event threaten the livelihood of the human race. The Earth may be big, but there are no forces that prevent it from moving. Intentionally toss a few rocks [asteroids] past it, and the gravitational pull will slowly accelerate the Earth out of its current orbit.

      I've read we'd have to destroy Mars to pull it off, perhaps drive it into Jupiter using the same asteroid swing-by technique. Mars' orbit would otherwise be too close to ours when we move Earth out. This town ain't big enough for the both of us.

    15. Re:Seems easy enough. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Archimedes.

    16. Re:Seems easy enough. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I don't see why we couldn't lock Mars/Earth into non-interfering orbits via the LaGrange Points. The natural "lock" of gravity between the Sun, Earth, and Mars would ensure that Earth and Mars would remain relative to each other for a very long time. And since the gravity is stable, it shouldn't have too many negative effects on the Earth's biosphere.

      Granted, calculating THAT trajectory would be a bit more difficult than simply moving the Earth willy-nilly. :-)

    17. Re:Seems easy enough. by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Why did he need either level or a place to stand anyway? He could have just jumped and moved the Earth twice.

    18. Re:Seems easy enough. by jd · · Score: 1

      A year is 365.251 days long. You'd need to increase the orbit so that the year was 366 days. The increase in the distance the Earth would need to travel is (366/365.251)x(distance currently travelled). The circumference is equal to twice the radius times pi. The first five planets have orbits at an almost constant ratio to one another, substantially more than required to move to 366 days. You'd not even notice Mars getting any larger. The question is whether that would be far enough to be safe from solar expansion. You might want to move to much closer to Mars. The moon and Earth form almost a double planet system and the moon is boring. Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet system might be more interesting.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Seems easy enough. by Xeriar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Martian mass is nontrivial compared to Earth's - the Lagrange points are not stable in such instances. Look up Theia.

    20. Re:Seems easy enough. by Gabest · · Score: 1

      And don't forget to make the days longer, I like sleeping a lot.

    21. Re:Seems easy enough. by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1

      The energies involved in moving a planetary body are staggering. It would entail moving the moon also as it is dragged about in an orbit around the earth. It would be much easier (in a few million years) to move the entire population of earth to moons in the jovian belt. We would need highly efficient energy conversion on a massive scale and a means of grappling the earth without touching it.

      When the sun does balloon out to the red giant phase the spectrum of light is going to shift more to the infrared. All plant and animal life would have a hard time coping (in it's present form), photosynthesis would need to change (or a different method of cellular energy conversion will need to develop).

      --
      Tisha Hayes
    22. Re:Seems easy enough. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Why move the Earth when you could be moving the Sun ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine

      Okay, I know I am just being dumb, the Earth would follow anyway. What the Sun really needs is a Star lifting

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    23. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re:Seems easy enough. by Enrique1218 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will we also have figured out how reignite the Earth's core when all the radioactive elements decay in 1 billion years.The dyanmo will shutdown, the stellar wind will erode the atmosphere, and the Earth will look like Mars. Either we are going to need a really big cyclotron or collect uranium from a really big supernova.

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    25. Re:Seems easy enough. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Seems like IF we had that kind of power, an equally noble goal would be to start sending out generational ships with such technologies to all young and nearby systems, especially if we're talking "Sun going red giant so we need to move the planet" and not just "global warming".

      By our current laws of physics we can never acheive FTL, but everything underneath is (technically) fair game. I'm sure within that time frame we could at least do 0.5c. That puts a lot of stars to within a 100 year trip. Send out ships to all of those, find a good size rocky planet around younger star, and if it isn't already in the Goldilocks zone, we move it there :). Earth 2.0 (Warning: This orbit is still in BETA testing.). Or even by that time we'll likely have much better planet detecting capabilities and could likely narrow our trips to only systems with likely habitable planets in the first place.

      It's truly my belief that if the universe isn't already brimming with life a la Star Trek, then mankind's mission is to spread it ourselves :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    26. Re:Seems easy enough. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Niven came up with putting giant fusion motors on Uranus (using the atmosphere as fuel), and maneuvering Uranus so that it pulls Earth into successively higher orbits. That was in _A Planet Out of Time_.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    27. Re:Seems easy enough. by Aiyeeeee · · Score: 1

      I do wonder what our 20th-century solutions will look like to 7,600,000th-century humanity, if we're still human (as we understand it) by then. We'd probably appear as sophisticated as a chimp licking termites off of a stick.

    28. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then. (Either that or evacuate our Dyson Sphere. Whichever comes first.)

      7.6 billion years may seem like a long time to you young guys, but when you get a little older, you may look back and wonder where the time went.

      or...

      Maybe the Chinese could build a Dyson sphere in 7.6 billion years, but in the west, it takes that long just to get the permits.

      or...

      Thermophilic bacteria say: What do you mean, wait 7.6 billion years? I'm cold now!

    29. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where are you going to find rocks large enough to make a noticable difference? Only on Earth.

    30. Re:Seems easy enough. by funaho · · Score: 1

      Nah you just get an ex space shuttle pilot to drive a giant laser/ultrasonic drilling machine into the core and drop off some really big nukes. As long as they avoid the giant floating diamonds they should be fine.

    31. Re:Seems easy enough. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      A year is 365.251 days long. You'd need to increase the orbit so that the year was 366 days. The increase in the distance the Earth would need to travel is (366/365.251)x(distance currently travelled). The circumference is equal to twice the radius times pi. The first five planets have orbits at an almost constant ratio to one another, substantially more than required to move to 366 days. You'd not even notice Mars getting any larger. The question is whether that would be far enough to be safe from solar expansion. You might want to move to much closer to Mars. The moon and Earth form almost a double planet system and the moon is boring. Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet system might be more interesting.

      Well, no. Among other reasons, as you increase the major axis of the orbit, the orbital speed decreases. Your statements above imply that orbital speed is constant with increasing mojor axis.

      The answer to "the question" that you mention, by the way, is "NO". It won't even be noticable on a cosmic scale.

      Note, by the way, that the condition you describe (Earth's orbital period being 366 days) WILL come to pass at some point in the next 7.6 billion years. Momentarily. Of course, the length of the day will have changed by then also....

      Moving to an Earth/Mars double planet would be pointless - move us out to Jupiter, put us in orbit around Jupiter, drop one of the outer moons (of Jupiter) into Jupiter to heat it up a bit, and we'd be fine.

      For a while....

      P.S. Any oldtimers recognize the reference? I doubt the kids will.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now there's a moronic statement if I ever heard one:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Belt

    33. Re:Seems easy enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Why do you say that? Because of that y-chromosome repair fault thing?

      Because of evolution and genetic drift.

      10 million years ago, our ancestors looked like weird apes.

      100 million years ago, our ancestors looked like mice.

      1000 million years ago, our ancestors looked like algae.

      7600 million years from now, I don't know what our descendants will look like, but they sure as hell won't be recognizable as homo sapiens. 7.6 billion years is a long time.

    34. Re:Seems easy enough. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Sharks have looked like sharks for over a hundred million years. Same with alligators and crocodiles. I don't think you can make a blanket statement that they "sure as hell" won't be recognizable as homo sapiens. If circumstances or our technology has enabled us to reach a local optimum, we could remain in this form for many millennia to come.

      The only thing I think is safe to say is that Humans will not be evolving separate from their tools.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    35. Re:Seems easy enough. by ivang7 · · Score: 1

      Hi there, I would be interested to read more about this research you are referring to, about scientists wanting to possibly move the earth. Do you know a site where I could read more about that?

    36. Re:Seems easy enough. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Look a few posts up to the link the AC posted. There's also an old Slashdot story on it, though I can't be flummoxed to try and dig it out right now. :-)

  16. Tell me by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If this is such an earth-shattering discovery, how come I read about it in Carl Sagan's COSMOS 20-odd years ago?

    slow news day?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. Will this finally end... by Nameisyoung007 · · Score: 1

    the copyright for a Beatles song?

  18. The Soundtrack of Our Lives by xactuary · · Score: 0
    Jimmy Eat World.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  19. OS Clock by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I guess that means our operating system clocks only need to work up until the year 7.6 billion.
    Someone work out how many bytes are needed to represent that time.

    1. Re:OS Clock by soundhack · · Score: 2, Informative

      32.823352272542484276756074858822 + 1 bits, so 5 bytes

    2. Re:OS Clock by Whitemend · · Score: 1

      7.6 billion years = 2.39832637 × 10^17 seconds I started it for you.

    3. Re:OS Clock by childprey · · Score: 1

      segmentation fault.

      --
      Everything clever I considered putting here I got from other slashdot sigs.
    4. Re:OS Clock by DeKO · · Score: 1

      Which amounts to 58 bits. With 64 bit integers, so we can have a granularity of 1/64 of a second.

    5. Re:OS Clock by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      The Tickless Kernel will take care of that problem.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    6. Re:OS Clock by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      That's an order of magnitude less than 2**63 seconds and so it is wonderful news! Once 64 bit time becomes the norm, we'll have solved the Y2038 problem and indeed time itself forever ...

  20. The Y7.6B Problem ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we honestly can't figure out how to correct the orbit of the Earth some 7.6 Billion years from now, we deserve a painful death.

    I think our odds are pretty good though.

    1. Re:The Y7.6B Problem ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can figure out how to survive without leaving the Earth for 7.6 billion years I'm willing to say we will have had a good run!

    2. Re:The Y7.6B Problem ...? by tubapro12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      7.6 billion years? If people are still H. sapiens then it'll probably be throwing out some theories too, since current theories posits we were only minor fauna running around in the footprints of dinosaurs merely 80 million years ago.

    3. Re:The Y7.6B Problem ...? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Check any reliable stellar evolution source that projects sun's life cycle, we only have 400 million years, the Sun is slowly expanding at such a rate only microbes will survive the searing surface heat by then.

    4. Re:The Y7.6B Problem ...? by demiseofman · · Score: 1

      It really is an academic endeavor. Homo Sapiens constructed the first organized civilizations about 10,000 years ago. As a species we have reached our pinnacle. We will be lucky to be in a civilized state in 100 years. Technology will prevail to destroy us before it redeems itself in our society. In 1000 years the Earth will start over again with a new evolved species by exterminating the now inferior human race. The cycle will constantly restart itself many times until we evolve enough to flee this planet long before the sun destroys it. At our current pace, we will destroy it long before the sun has a chance to.

  21. Read that in a Time-Life Science Book when I was 8 by joebob2000 · · Score: 1

    So what's the news?

  22. confusion re expanding to earth's orbit vs engulf by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was looking for something to mod up but all the replies so far are about how they learned the earth would be engulfed and surprised at the debate. I think the confusion is arises because there is no debate about whether the sun will expand to the size of earth's orbit. The debate is whether the earth will have moved far enough from that current orbit to not be engulfed. Here we go, wikipedia says precisely this:

    While it is likely that the expansion of the outer layers of the Sun will reach the current position of Earth's orbit, recent research suggests that mass lost from the Sun earlier in its red giant phase will cause the Earth's orbit to move further out, preventing it from being engulfed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun&oldid=193657154#Life_cycle

    And some of the academic references are actually a decade old: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html
  23. Gravity Assist by EEPROMS · · Score: 1, Redundant

    This disaster can actually be compensated for to some degree by moving earths orbit further out from the sun using gravity assist. What you do is capture a large mass be it a comet or a large asteroid then put it in elongated orbit around earth. As the large mass now circling nears earth it pulls on the planet thus moving it ever so slightly. Few billions year later and earth has moved far enough out to avoid annihilation for a few extra billions years.

    1. Re:Gravity Assist by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or just build lots of robots and have them all vent out their exhaust pipes in the same direction at the same time.

    2. Re:Gravity Assist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we pull a comet or large asteroid into an elongated orbit, or indeed any orbit, around the Earth, then assuming we average our calculations over several billion years, the net acceleration enacted upon Earth by it shall equal exactly nil. It may pull more strongly at its perihelion, but this will be perfectly countered by the longer time that it will loiter near the aphelion of its orbit.

      To put it more succinctly, I refer to the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

      In any case, even if you were to try, you'd find you could not stabilise its orbit. The Sun-Eath-Moon gravitational interactions would soon expel it.

      Posting as AC because I couldn't be bothered to create an account.

    3. Re:Gravity Assist by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      That would cause the Earth's year to grow longer. We should create holidays on the new days, in honor of the helpful robots. We could name them Robonukah and Robanza.

    4. Re:Gravity Assist by Yonsen · · Score: 0

      Solution: Bruce Willis. WE all KNOW he can harness the power of an asteroid and bend it to his will. I foresee a Willis Chariot... driven by 10 sinister-looking asteroids.

    5. Re:Gravity Assist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why we need some asteroid to do that, we already have a Moon. It does have more mass than anything we can capture from space. It is slowly escaping from the Earth, but surely it can be used.

    6. Re:Gravity Assist by joke_dst · · Score: 1

      No matter how many billion years the asteroid rotates around the earth the mass center of the system will not climb higher in the suns gravity well.

      What you need is a bunch of asteroids you send past the earth on the far side from the sun, pulling earth UP from the gravity well and the asteroid DOWN.

    7. Re:Gravity Assist by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Robots? Meh, just give me a spacesuit and a can of beans.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  24. Wow talk about the slashdot community being slow.. by Allnighterking · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm 51 years old and I first saw this story in the Weekly Reader in 1st grade..... ( *grin* )

    --

    I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

  25. Forgot to say that was in the '70s by joebob2000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    and the books were first published in the late 60's

  26. Whew, there's still time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the Year of the Linux Desktop to occur before the world ends. Better get a move on though.

  27. By that time... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...humans will have destroyed it, and several others...

    1. Re:By that time... by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      We won't destroy the planet. We'll just make it uninhabitable for humans.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    2. Re:By that time... by philspear · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, we don't have the ability to completely destroy it now, but give us one more arms race, a few more conservative presidents, and we will have a hand grenade that can split the earth. You know, mutually assured destruction done right. I hope we call it a "super mega holy anti-matter hand grenade 9000."

  28. Well... by TheNatealator · · Score: 1

    Considering that only half of scientific papers are true (recent slashdot article I can't find anymore) and that astronomers also were off by a factor of 2 in one of the dimensions of our galaxy (slashdot again), I think this story has a long time to wait before it's newsworthy.

  29. At some point by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Funny

    After 7.6 billion years, it's time to move out of mom's basement.

    1. Re:At some point by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

      But then where will I hide from the day star? It's trying to kill me, you know.

      --
      www.isoHunt.com
  30. Close, but no by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    Actually a dying Earth will engulf the Sun.

    By the time any of this happens, humanity will either have ascended or descended to a point where it won't matter anyways.

    I, for one, cannot wait to be information and energy without having mass.

    1. Re:Close, but no by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Actually a dying Earth will engulf the Sun.

      That's only in the Special Edition version Lucas has planned.
    2. Re:Close, but no by yayotters · · Score: 0

      Actually a dying Earth will engulf the Sun. The Earth will be run by Soviets in 7.6 billion years?
      Striking...
    3. Re:Close, but no by bronney · · Score: 1

      That's only in the Soviet Russia version Lucas has planned. There, fixed.

    4. Re:Close, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. That's in Soviet Russia.

  31. No problem by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    By that time, mankind will be sufficiently advanced to relocate to an outer planet.....like Pluto.

    What? Pluto isn't a planet anymore??

    Oh No! We're doomed!!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. What? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    I read that stuff back in the 60's. And the sun's life expectancy was going to be around 9 billion years or so. Nobody was saying that the earth would escape.

    --
    What?
  33. Difficult to imagine... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    It will also expand, driven by helium fusion so that its outer layers reach past the earth's current orbit.
    Out of shear boredom, I decided to do some calculations, using the following (someone please fix my math, if it's wrong):

    Avg. distance from Earth to the Sun (according to Wikipedia) = 1.496x10^11 meters
    Current mass of the sun (according to Google) = 1.9889x10^33 grams
    Current Diameter of the sun (according to Google) = 1.4x10^9 meters
    Volume of a sphere = (4/3)(r^3)
    Density = mass/volume

    Based on that:

    Volume of the sun = 6.465x10^27 cubic meters
    Density of the sun = 3.076x10^5 g/m^3 or about 300 kilograms per cubic meter

    However, in the future:

    Volume of red giant sun = 7.889x10^33 cubic meters
    Density of red giant sun = 0.25 g/m^3 or about 250 milligrams per cubic meter

    Can that be right? Can fusion happen at such a low density? For comparison, the average density of the earth's Atmosphere at sea level (of course depending on many factors) is about 1.225 kg/m^3.

    Or, more likely, are my numbers off? Can someone check my math?

    Regardless, the sizes and such involved are difficult to imagine, aren't they? A sphere with a current radius of about 0.005 AU will expand to a sphere with a radius of 1 AU? Huge. Mind boggling. My head asplode.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Difficult to imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      IANAAP (Astrophysicist) and I don't know if your math is right, but your general thinking is probably on. You are essentially calculating an average density (not in tehnical terms, but in lay terms anyway). So the density on the edge will be really low because most of the mass will be near the center (just as the sun is today). So the fusion is going on in the dense part which, calculated along with the sparser outer layers, combines for an average density that seems too low for fusion. I would be interested to know whether your math is really that close though...anyone?

    2. Re:Difficult to imagine... by Einer2 · · Score: 4, Informative
      I doubt if this post is high enough to net any karma, but oh well. I'll chalk it up as my outreach for the day...week...year...something. The important quantity isn't the average density, but the core density (as fusion only happens near the core). As stars evolve off the main sequence, their outer layers may expand, but they also become much more centrally condensed.

      During the hydrogen burning phase, inert helium gradually builds up in the core and hydrogen becomes less common. This means the core has to contract and become hotter in order to produce enough energy to support itself and the surrounding envelope. The fusion rate depends on the square of the hydrogen density (since you need the hydrogen atoms to collide with each other), so if the hydrogen density goes down, the core has to become hotter and more generally dense in order to maintain the same energy production rate. (This is why stars gradually become more luminous over their main sequence lifetime, as the core actually has to produce more energy in order to support itself in its more compact configuration.)

      As a star finishes exhausting its hydrogen, this actually reaches a very extreme configuration where the core becomes much more compact (and much hotter) trying to squeeze out the required energy with very little hydrogen remaining. The total energy being produced by the core (in order to keep itself from collapsing) increases very rapidly at this point, and the larger luminosity will then push the envelope outward, puffing it up. This is why stars expand into red giants, and this is the stage where the Earth will probably be engulfed.

      For trivia purposes, the central core eventually runs entirely out of hydrogen and sits there as an inert clump while the upper edges of the core burn hydrogen. When the hydrogen is exhausted for a large enough fraction of the core, the center eventually becomes hot and dense enough to fuse helium into carbon. At this point, the overall luminosity drops again (because the star doesn't need to keep frantically burning just hydrogen to support itself) and the star contracts a bit. The process then starts over again, with a shell of helium fusion surround an inert carbon core that (for stars more massive than the Sun) eventually ignites to fuse into neon, oxygen, etc.

      --
      Microsoft delenda est!
    3. Re:Difficult to imagine... by dido · · Score: 1

      From what I know, nuclear fusion happens only inside the core of a star. What happens when the sun reaches its red giant phase is that the core shrinks to maintain the pressures needed to sustain helium fusion. The sun itself may become less and less dense but the core at the center where fusion takes place gets more and more dense. The sun growing to such a large size is simply the first phase of the sun's gradually shedding off its outer layers.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    4. Re:Difficult to imagine... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Or, more likely, are my numbers off? Can someone check my math?

      Your math is most likely correct, but your assumption that the density of the sun is uniform is not.

    5. Re:Difficult to imagine... by evilviper · · Score: 1, Informative

      the core becomes much more compact (and much hotter) trying to squeeze out the required energy with very little hydrogen remaining.

      I really wish you wouldn't repeatedly use this terminology.

      It is decidedly un-informative to explain what an inanimate object is "trying" to do. And what's more, a much more accurate and informative explanation is really no longer or more difficult to offer.

      A quick and sloppy example:

      "As hydrogen is depleted, the [outward] pressure from hydrogen fusion can no longer [fully] counteract the force of gravity, so the star's density increases, and the core pressure rises [getting hotter] until the point that helium fusion occurs."

      See... Now people might actually understand why stars don't "try" to fuse helium, until the hydrogen supply is depleted.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Difficult to imagine... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Not quite right. With inert helium forming the core, hydrogen burning occurs in a shell outside of it. The radius of the H-burning shell depends mostly on the amount of mass within it, but the energy output depends on the thickness. So, as the core shrinks, the H-burning shell gets thicker, with only a slight increase in its outer radius. (The inert core shrinks, by the way, since it is not producing any energy to maintain thermal pressure sufficient to maintain its radius.) Since the core essentially pushes the energy generation zone from the core to an outer shell, which is closer to the surface of the star, the atmosphere gets more heat dumped into it, and it expands. Since an expanding gas is cooler, the a Sun-like star goes from a smallish yellow ball to a giant, redder ball.

      The inert core, in fact, continues to shrink until it reaches a size where electron degeneracy pressure becomes important (cf. the Pauli principle). At that point it cannot be squeezed any smaller for its mass, and one would think that the H-burning shell should be stable. BUT — and here is the neato part — since the H-burning is continuing, helium ash continues to be deposited on the inert He core, so it is increasing in mass. And since the core is degenerate, an increase in mass leads to a decrease in radius (cf. Chandrasekhar limit), which means the core keeps shrinking. Which increases the thickness of the H-burning shell, which dumps even more mass on the core, which shrinks, etc. It is this feedback loop that produces the expanding star discussed in this article.

      to continue the thought, remember this inert core has been in direct contact with a hydrogen-burning shell the whole time. And while the electrons in the core are degenerate, the helium nuclei are not, and have been absorbing heat energy from the core the entire time. So it has been getting hotter and hotter inside, and is reasonably isothermal throughout. So, given enough time and H-burning, the core will eventually reach ignition temperature, and all start burning at once. This "helium flash" dumps so much energy at once into the core that it breaks the degeneracy and the core reaches a new equilibrium, with a core of carbon ash, a helium-burning shell, and a hydrogen-burning shell.

      What happens after that depends on the initial mass of the star, but it usually ends up with the loss of the entire atmosphere of the star to space, producing (briefly) a planetary nebula and leaving the inert core behind as a white dwarf.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:Difficult to imagine... by Einer2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, but if you want to engage the vast majority of humanity and get them interested in astronomy, it can help to anthropomorphize a bit. Precision matters in journal articles, but not so much in getting votes for JWST and TPF.

      For empirical evidence, I'll note that one of us sounds like a pedantic nerd with a tweed fetish, while the other is currently modded at +5. Just saying.

      --
      Microsoft delenda est!
    8. Re:Difficult to imagine... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      it can help to anthropomorphize a bit.

      I already explained that not only does it NOT help your example in any way, but makes the explanation unnecessarily magical an uninformative. Having taught at various levels for several years, I do have a fairly good ability to explain to laymen, and without resorting to rather inaccurate characterizations.

      For empirical evidence, I'll note that one of us sounds like a pedantic nerd with a tweed fetish, while the other is currently modded at +5.

      If I happened to read through the comments before you, I would have posted a similar explanation, without so much inaccuracy, and similarly have gotten a +5 mod. It's happened plenty of times before. It's simply a fact of life that what I had to say was not really on topic, even if it happens to be helpful and important.

      Mod points is no kind of metric of person's relative worth, as you'll learn some day when you grow up, so you're welcome to keep your whining little insults to yourself. Just saying.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  34. Well, there's only one solution here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must destroy the sun right now! Our survival depends on it! I think if we point a giant firehose at it, we should be able to at least slow down Earth's demise. Why is this not on Obama, Hillary's and McCain's agenda? Fuckers.

  35. Obligatory... by that_itch_kid · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new helium-filled, earth-devouring overlord!

  36. someone ate my pi by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    Oops... Throw a "pi" up there into the Volume equation.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  37. This assumes we really know what powers the sun. by arminw · · Score: 1

    The ancients assumed (believed) the sun is a giant camp fire. Then Einstein came along with his famous equation and humans built a hydrogen bomb. So then the solar campfire was upgraded to a thermonuclear fire. That's what we assume (believe) today.

    Thermonuclear reactions produce lots of neutrinos. However, the number of those little particles we actually measure and how many we should be measuring if indeed the sun is a giant controlled fusion reactor, is way different. The number we measure is far too small. There are some rather convoluted explanations for this, but it really still is very much a puzzle why we don't measure more neutrinos.

    It has been pretty well established, that heat moves from the hotter to the cooler region. If the interior of the sun is hot enough for fusion (about 20-25 million deg) it is conceivable that by the time the energy gets to the surface, the temperature could have cooled to the 6000 degrees we measure there. Now how is it then that as we move away from the surface of the sun, to its corona, the temperature we measure rises to 3 million degrees?

    According to the way heat normally behaves, it should get steadily cooler as the distance from the sun increases. If fusion is truly the source of the sun's heat, then somehow, the laws of thermodynamics are turned on their head or for some unknown reason don't apply to this situation with the sun.

    Maybe, we still don't REALLY know what powers the sun. Which of course makes the whole article pure speculation.

    --
    All theory is gray
  38. I think I'm more interested in an estimate of by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    how long the human race will survive. (no smiley)

    While I have all my life shared the deep desire to know the "ultimate end" (if there even is such a thing), the more I pay attention the more I feel the cognitive resources spent on these kinds of calculations are almost shameful - the astrophysical equivalent of gunning down buffalo from the back of the train.

    If we weren't trying to solve these problems I'd be the voice saying that we should. It was just that in a world of such instability, in reading this article I suddenly felt sad we were spending time figuring out what might happen in a few billion years, when so many of us desperately need to know simply how to survive tomorrow.

    Wow, just writing that helps bring me back to balance (since my projective emotional response to something can only ever be a response to something inside me). Remembering my own personal priorities, with which I'd momentarily lost touch this evening, has me feel centered again. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to right myself...and for listening.

    (P.S. My own thesis is that long before the 7.6E9 moment we'll have grown to be able experience ourselves as far more than we do now, not just as tiny elements at the effect of the cosmic turnings of the Sun and Earth, but at one with the entire Universe itself. And with that, time for bed...gotta survive tomorrow, too, you know. ;-) )

  39. Can't wait that long by daBass · · Score: 1

    In about 2 billion years the Milky Way could already collide with the Andromeda Galaxy, which will more than likely change earth's cozy equilibrium that enables human life in a sub-optimal way.

    1. Re:Can't wait that long by Xeriar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Space is big. There are only supposed to be about six stellar collisions, and most of those in the core region. Out here in the boondocks? We're probably fine.

  40. Hey KDawson.... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    Uhmmm, next how about posting something that is actually news ok? I mean for fucks sake I learned this in grade school and that was over 35 years ago!/p

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    1. Re:Hey KDawson.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your [sic] old.

    2. Re:Hey KDawson.... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      I might be old, but you are STILL a coward, asseyes.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    3. Re:Hey KDawson.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Do you really mean to be advertising your ignorance like that? You do know that they teach a lot of things in grade school that are either very distorted or just outright wrong, right? Not to mention that as time progresses we learn new things, especially in the sciences. If you check the reliable sources what you'll find is that they said was that the sun would enlarge and engulf the earth's _orbit_, without clarifying that they actually mean the earth's current orbit and not where the earth will be at the time. Of course many of the unreliable sources just said "the sun will get bigger and eat the earth." However actual astronomers, you know, people who aren't basing their beliefs on what they learned in grade school a few decades ago, thought the earth's orbit might expand enough to save it. So your assumption might have turned out to be correct but the foundation it was based on was faulty. And i say this as someone who just found out about the distinction a few months ago myself, so until very recently i was just as confused as you. For most of us we're either interested to find out that the debate has been settled (or so this group claims anyways) or interested to find out there was a debate that we didn't know about. If neither case applies to you, why are you reading science articles on slashdot?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    4. Re:Hey KDawson.... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      I am not quite sure why I am replying, but something about what you said just led me to think, "What an elitist arrogant jerk!

      If your hobby is reading astronomy journals, then more power to you, mine is not. My "assumption" was taught as scientific fact in the 60's and 70's. The fact that some Ph.D candidate decided to start poking at gravitational theories based upon loss of mass, based on an increase in size, without taking into account that even though the object in question will not have lost much mass decides to postulate that the earths orbit will therefor increase do to a lack of gravitational attraction, finds that the theory is incorrect and thus, what those nutty science guys taught me in grade school is still correct, does not in any way show "my ignorance" because asshat, I RTFA before I made the comment and therefor concluded that this was indeed NOT news worthy of note on /..

      So, to be succinct, Bite Me!

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    5. Re:Hey KDawson.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Geez, relax dude. I've never read an astronomy journal in my life. Like i said, i was just as ignorant until very recently when someone brought it up on, *gasp!* slashdot! Also the basic theory isn't incorrect, they're just disagreeing over the exact numbers and times involved. Despite what you claim a quick google search shows that the sun will lose about 33% of its mass and earth's new stable orbit will be at 1.5 AU, but the orbit won't expand quite quickly enough and the sun will catch it before it gets there.

      So let's take a look at the response of various groups to the article. Some of us saw the article and said "i'd heard about that theory, it's interesting to see that there's been a conclusion about it," some of us said "i didn't know it was even a matter of question, but it's interesting to read about the reasons why it was being investigated and to see what the results were," and some said "i didn't know about that and/or i'm not interested in it, so i'm not going to pay any attention to it." But one small group of people decided to jump in and say "i wasn't aware of the possibility but since the final result is the same as what my grade school textbook said a couple decades ago i'm going to declare that this research by real astronomers isn't actually news!" I certainly know which of those groups i find to be elitist and arrogant. So if they suddenly found out tomorrow that global warming didn't actually exist would you say that that wasn't news since no one had heard of global warming 30 years ago so nothing had changed? Or 300 years ago would you have declared that Newton's theory of gravity wasn't news because all it proved is that things fall when you drop them, and everyone already knew that anyways?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  41. In other news by eclectro · · Score: 1

    It has been reported from archeologists who have teleported from the future to our time that 7.59 billion years from now, Duke Nukem Forever is released to manufacturing.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  42. On the bright side by tumutbound · · Score: 1

    I'll be long dead by the time it happens, however it happens.

  43. I wouldn't worry about it... by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 5, Informative

    When speaking of planetary catastrophe the death of our Sun is but a distant worry. It has already been mentioned that in about 3 billion years the galaxy Andromeda will collide with our own Milky Way galaxy. That of course poses several dangers to Earth in itself, though none particularly likely due to the vast distances between stars within galaxies, the potential for a stellar marauder to interfere with our solar system and cause chaos for Earth does exist. More worrisome, though, is the fact that around the same time (3 billion years from now) the Earth's core will finally cool and it's magnetic field generating dynamo will shut down, causing the Earth's shielding from the solar wind to collapse and the atmosphere to be stripped away eventually leaving the planet as dry and barren as Mars. Well before that ever happens, Earth will have to deal with the solar system's bobbing and weaving in and out of the galactic plane, possibly exposing the planet to deadly cosmic rays. Even nearer to our future is the fact that a conveniently aimed gamma ray burst from an exploding star (Betelgeuse is ready to go any day now) could "sterilize" the planet. Then of course, there is the ever present threat of an Earth shattering asteroid impact, which happens every 100 million years or so on average... in which case you could consider Earth overdue for another one. So yeah... the Sun engulfing the Earth (or what's left of it) 7 billion years from now... I wouldn't sweat that one.

    1. Re:I wouldn't worry about it... by Xeriar · · Score: 1

      Long before any of that, the Sun's ever-increasing solar output will overwhelm the greenhouse mechanisms of Earth.

      Either we get a gravity tug, or we get fried. Simple, really.

    2. Re:I wouldn't worry about it... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      causing the Earth's shielding from the solar wind to collapse and the atmosphere to be stripped away eventually leaving the planet as dry and barren as Mars

      O, RLY? AFAIK Venus has no or negligible magnetosphere (and that - solar induced) and is significantly closer to the Sun, yet its atmosphere is thicker than the Earth's. Don't parrot, read this.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:I wouldn't worry about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the Earth's oceans will boil away in 1..2 billion years because the
      Sun will be hotter then, raising the Earth's temperature past the boiling point of water.

  44. The man was WAY ahead of his time. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    In fact, he was billions and billions of years ahead of his time. He was more ahead of his time than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on the earth....

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  45. It won't engulf me! by TheSpengo · · Score: 1

    7.6 billion years is way enough time to save up money to build my spaceship. I've started a spaceship fund, I will put $1 in it every year for 7.6 billion years! :D

    --
    Weaksauce as they say...
  46. Galaxy Collision by TheAncientEvil · · Score: 1

    Considering our galaxy should collide with the Andromeda Galaxy in about 3 billion years, I think it may be a moot point. Since there is a good chance the earth nor the sun may be still around, or may not be near each other of if passing gravity fields toss the planets out of their orbits, etc.

  47. The Earth will be dead much sooner than that by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the professor who taught my astronomy class, the Earth's climate will be tipped into thermal runaway, like Venus, long before the Sun becomes a red giant. Solar output increases steadily as the Sun ages. It's only a matter of time, like a few billion years, before it overwhelms the Earth's ability to regulate its temperature.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:The Earth will be dead much sooner than that by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Does the sun's solar output counteract the changes in the atmosphere? I thought 'global dimming' was a problem due to all the crap we throw up in the air.

      --

      -Bucky
  48. WTF.....? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How in the Hell is this NEWS?! Astronomers have known about this for DECADES!

    What's next? An article telling us gasoline is flammable?

    Somebody please tag this noshitsherlock.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:WTF.....? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're wrong. Astronomers haven't known this for decades. People who get their astronomy knowledge out of grade school textbooks and the popular media have "known" this inaccurate fact for decades. What's happened is that astronomers have finally proven that for reasons you never considered the end result will be the same as what you and many others were assuming with insufficient evidence. See this comment, or any of the half dozen others explaining in even more detail why exactly this is news.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  49. Phew... 7.6 billion.... by feepness · · Score: 1

    I thought it said 7.6 million at first.

  50. Or we could move the earth by dameron · · Score: 1
    Of course, if we're still here politics would prevent moving the earth until it's too late.

    I mean, sure, the sun "looks" larger but is it really?

    I've got 10 industry funded studies that says it's an optical illusion.

  51. ..But where would earth's orbit be then? by robbak · · Score: 1

    Yes, it has long been known that the sun would expand beyond the present-day orbit of the earth. But this is asking what would happen to the earth's orbit in that time. Would the decaying mass of the sun allow planet earth to escape? That seemed like a likely scenario. The maths presented here suggest that the earth would be caught in the tenious outer atmosphere of the decaying sun, where friction would slow it down and it would be captured.

    Still, as others have noted, the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will pass through each other in some 2 billion years. Is there a young star with our name on it, calmly stabilising, ready to snatch us away from our then elderly sun? There is also a large cloud of hydrogen heading our way, with a similar timeframe. What is that going to do?

    Time will tell.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  52. Just have to wait an see what GW has to say . by lazy+genes · · Score: 1

    Sure, he wont let that happen.

  53. Re:Phew... 7.6 billion.... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how big of a difference it would make to you... :)

  54. Figure It Out Soon! by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1

    I sure hope they figure this out soon.

    Should I spend a bunch of money to freeze my corpse for later revival, or would I just be throwing that money away?

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
  55. A long time by Hojima · · Score: 0

    We will either destroy ourselves before this happens, or our technology will give us a choice of many solutions to the problem (one of them undoubtedly involving CoyboyNeal).

  56. Quick! by jmv · · Score: 1

    Someone tell B.W. Bush he needs to invade the sun to get rid of its WMDs.

  57. Just think of Kurzweil by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    While I don't believe the singularity will happen in 20 years, it's reasonable to believe it'll happen in less than 1,000 years.
    Thus, in a couple billion years, we can either download our minds into probes or we'll have been replaced by robots or something like that. In any case, clinging to a physical existence will be considered highly overrated.
    Or we'll just have killed ourselves off in some way and some other species can scratch their heads about it. 70-something million years for mammals to evolve into us? There's time for at least 50 such cycles.

  58. fate of earth by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    >A minor academic debate among astronomers is the final fate of the earth.

    I don't know, but I bet the Cylons will have something to do with it.

  59. It has to be said by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 1

    Sun to Earth: Haha, die in a fire. Earth: Come back in 7.6 billion years, n00b.

    --
    No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
  60. Finally by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    At least this way, all that plastic garbage we've churned out finally gets recycled.

  61. Forty Two by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    But is "Disaster Area" going to be playing live during the finale? /me puts on my peril sensitive glasses

    1. Re:Forty Two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > But is "Disaster Area" going to be playing live during the finale? /me puts on my peril sensitive glasses

      Sound is a pressure wave in a gaseous medium. The pressure waves and shock waves incinerating the surface of a planet plowing through the outer layers of a red giant star, do indeed indeed constitute the loudest noise that could possibly be played on that planet.

      For a "planet" the size of a baseball, re-entry into the atmosphere of a planet constitutes a Disaster Area concert.

      The only louder conceivable "sounds" in the universe would be those experienced by inhabitants of something few tens of million miles from a star going supernova, or (assuming lifeforms made of pure iron and only a millimeter tall) during the collision of two orbiting neutron stars.

      But for Earth, whose sun can't go supernova, incineration in the atmosphere of a red giant Sun is "the loudest sound that anything on Earth will, or could, ever experience". That's precisely the definition of a Disaster Area concert, so the serious answer to your question is, in fact, "yes".

  62. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We burned the religious fanatics.

    With their help of course.

  63. Melting all four elements by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The Elements according to Aristotle: Air, Earth, Water and Fire.

    So, I take it that Fire will melt too. Hmmm, interesting concept.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Melting all four elements by bendodge · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with Aristotle?

      --
      The government can't save you.
  64. Not in Kansas by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Sure, but not in Kansas.

    "As it was in the beginning (~6000 years ago), now is and always will be, world without end."

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  65. Quick, by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    start the sun on a low-carb diet

  66. Not even close by symbolset · · Score: 1

    By this time if humans have not established self sufficient colonies around many different stars they deserve to die out.

    This is a test. This is the only test.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Not even close by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Humans won't exist well before then.

      Also, this isn't news. The original theory was that the sun would expand right out to the earth's orbit during its "red giant" phase. The idea that the earth might spiral out is relatively new ... all this does is confirm the original position.

      In other words, in 7 billion years ... nothing to see here, move along ...

    2. Re:Not even close by kalirion · · Score: 1

      We'll be too busy destroying the self-sufficient colonies of other races.

  67. Re:This assumes we really know what powers the sun by hubie · · Score: 2, Informative

    The solar corona problem isn't tied to fusion per se, just to a very hot core cooling radially outward. Also, there aren't any problems with thermodynamics in this situation provided there is some mechanism that is adding energy to the plasma at the solar surface. Given the violent nature of the solar surface, particularly with respect to solar flares and coronal mass ejections, there are certainly energy generating processes going on, so it isn't too terribly surprising that the corona gets heated up. The big question is what process(es) are causing it. For what it's worth, magnetic reconnection is the main suspect.

  68. TV isn't the final word by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the 60's or so they figured out the whole red giant phase of stellar evolution and realized the sun would expand to about the diameter of the earth's present orbit when it reached this point. It was a fascinating bit of trivia for Carl Sagan and the common folk to pass around that the sun would engulf the earth, but further investigation showed the sun would likely lose something like 30% of it's mass as heat from helium fusion blew away the outer layers (a process that looks really freaking cool from a distance). This would cause the earth, due to conservation of its orbital energy, to assume a much larger orbit...about as far out as Mars is today.

    Therefore the popular notion was thought by many astronomers to be wrong. But in fact, nobody had ever done a really detailed model of the process until the subject of this article. It turns out, the professionals were wrong, and the common folk were correct, if only because we were a couple decades behind the times academically.

    If you don't believe me, here's the archived wikipedia page for earth from last Friday. It's since been updated.

    1. Re:TV isn't the final word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe me, here's the archived wikipedia page for earth from last Friday. It's since been updated.

      I don't believe Wikipedia either.

  69. Oh my fsm by symbolset · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This is the most informed and educated post I have seen on slashdot for some time.

    Mod parent up! Long before solar expansion is an issue the earth will have been struck by extinction level asteroids multiple times.

    This is a test: Escape your planet of origin or die out. End test.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  70. Old 'news' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow a 30+ years piece of info isn't really news. I was taught this in grade school back in the 70s. Come on, try something that's not older than half your audience...

  71. That can't be! by jd · · Score: 1

    The last human watches the Earth get destroyed from a nearby spacestation, before getting roasted by The Doctor.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  72. As opposed to... by Calinous · · Score: 1

    "A minor academic debate among astronomers is the final fate of the earth" - in 7 billion years.
          However, a major debate is the final fate of the Universe - will it expand indefinitely, leading to the thermal death? Or it will be crushed together by the force of gravity, in a reverse of the Big Bang? This might take a little longer than 7 billion years

    1. Re:As opposed to... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Currently the money is on Heat death, but IIRC it's pretty much on the edge on heat death/big crunch, so new observations could change our ideas.

      STOP CREATING ENTROPY EVERYONE! STOP IT NOW!!!1!

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  73. Depends on your point of view by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Science may cure death for the few. For the many is a more difficult question.

    If your estate can sustain your corpse reliably for 200 years then improvements in medical science can be a fair bet. If your estate can endow a foundation to provide for your arousal then it is closer to a sure thing. Nothing is certain though. In 40 years the concept of ownership of property can vary considerably.

    In the term TFA is speaking of nothing can save you on this planet. Y(our) only hope is to escape this solar system entirely.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  74. 7.6 billion years by nbucking · · Score: 1

    So this means that earth is in it's late 30s then (relatively speaking)? Another billion years then before it's over the hill. So when do we get out the black hats and balloons? The point of this theory is to say we do not have to worry about this ever happening to humans. Oh no, we'll probably kill each other before the party even begins.

  75. Forgot to say "average" by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1
    Hrmm... Guess I did forget to put the word "average" in my OP. However, considering the density is variable, would the density at a distance of the Earth's current orbit then even be enough to be considered part of the "sun"? Based on the calculations, it would then be an (probably) insignificant fraction of the 0.25g/m^3 that I already calculated.

    How do they determine the boundary between the sun's "surface" and the space around it?

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Forgot to say "average" by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      The density distribution is VERY non-linear. Small dense core, BIG thin shell.
      So the density at earth orbit may not be a lot lower than 0.25g/m^3.
      Lets say it would be 0.15g.
      Thats still more than the athmosphere density of earth in the height that columbia disintegrated.
      The earth is a lot faster than columbia. Plus that part of the sun at that time will be a lot hotter than earth athmosphere.

      Whether it is part of the sun or not wont matter :).

      Also, compare it to the density of interstellar space: Its at least 7 orders of magnitude higher. So its reasonable to dismiss those 3 orders of magnitude it is missing to the density of a "real" star.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  76. Actually... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    unless we kill ourselves before that, I believe we'll equip Earth with good hyperdrive and sail to greener pastures.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  77. Schoolwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, thanks for teaching us what we've learned in school already. Much appreciated.

  78. Where are politicians on this? by democrates · · Score: 1

    All life on earth gone in one billion years, the single most crucial issue facing the earth and I haven't heard one politician stating what they intend to do about it.

    Politicians must get behind the urgent job of colonising new planets, and given the journey times this should be ready to roll by half time, otherwise we'll end up in a last 500 million year rush, as usual.

  79. What I Think About The Situation by berenixium · · Score: 0

    Buggar.

  80. Reaction mass by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Thats how you do it. Build a solar powered mass driver on the moon then fly it out of Earth orbit and position it ahead of the Earth so that the thrust from the mass driver offsets gravitational pull from Earth. Over millions of years the two planets accelerate away from the sun. Problem solved.

    Larry Niven had something similar in A World out of Time, but using Uranus or Neptune as a hydrogen fueled tug to reorganise the solar system. But I think the other gas giant had been dropped into the sun using the same technique which caused a bit of premature ageing.

  81. Re:This assumes we really know what powers the sun by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 2, Informative

    the core of the Sun is more like 15 million degrees.

    the coronal heating problem simply means the mechanism responsible for the increased temperature is a non-equilibrium process. the corona is also a near-vacuum so despite its high temperature there is relatively tiny amount of energy there.

  82. Grim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future there is Only Us getting eating by the frackin' sun.

  83. Thank god I bought that acre on the moon... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ...if I time it just right I'll get 14 more days then the rest of you suckers!

    Bwahahahahahahaha...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  84. Well, so long... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

    and thanks for all the fish!

    --
    So say we all
  85. But... by Caedes.Leighton · · Score: 1

    Humanity will die a hell of a lot quicker than the planet so why should we care if the sun engulfs the Earth? It won't be our problem...

  86. This work is suspect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was not done by American scientists. I refuse to recognise it.

    Now, how can we use this to increase our grip on the world.....?

  87. Obligatory H2G2 Reference by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    You could place a brown paper bag over your head and lie down or something...

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:Obligatory H2G2 Reference by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Nah, I'll just wait for NASA to send some oil drillers that they took a week to train to save us all... Better yet, let me just bury my head in the ground - that'd be more realistic!

  88. Chuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt Chuck N. will allow this happen to our homeworld

  89. Just because you don't know one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't mean there isn't one.

    As an astrophysicist at university, I knew there was a good chance that the earth would be saved as a cold rock because the gravitational potential energy of a smaller sun would mean our kinetic energy would give us a wider orbit.

    Nobody had done a simulation of which would come first: enough mass ejecta and orbital stability or the red giant phase.

    Looks like the red giant will come first.

  90. This is old news by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We learnt this in science in the 80s. It's probably older news than that. So what if there is a new calculation, does 7 billion years away really matter?

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
    1. Re:This is old news by thefear · · Score: 1

      So what if there is a new calculation, does 7 billion years away really matter? Pfft, that's what they said about Y2K.
      --
      :(
  91. Well, the question is.... by wobedraggled · · Score: 1

    Will we be around in some form to see this, or would we have killed ourselves off by that point? I guess it's plenty of time to get off this rock, and mess up another one.

    --
    Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
  92. Heat up? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    it will heat up, making the earth inhospitable One things a star definitely can't do when changing from yellow to red is heating up -- the surface temperature has to drop for this to happen, color reflects the temperature.

    It may increase the total energy output, or transfer more energy to the planets, heating THEM up, but Sun itself will cool down.
    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  93. James Dean sez by berbo · · Score: 1

    "You can wake up now, the universe has ended. " rebel w/o a cause

  94. How dare you insult the Pope of the global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cult. Blind obedience is the only path to salvation! Repent sinner!!!

  95. If evolution is a myth... by Kinthelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If evolution is a myth, what chance does gravity have? It is also, after all, only a theory.

    --

    "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

  96. The solar system may not be around for this event by groot · · Score: 1

    In about 3 billion years our Milky Way galaxy will be merging the Andromeda Galaxy: http://www.galaxydynamics.org/tflops.html With the the expect rain of gamma rays and shock wave clouds from supernova that expected to be going at the rate of several per year, or the tidal forces from star passing through the solar system, the Earth might be freed from the solar grasp, if not totally destroyed in the process. Of course there might the more quiet possibility that solar system could be lucky enough to be flung out of the galaxy by slingshot to await the sun's bloat 4 billion years later.

    --
    "Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
  97. Wither Duke Nukem Forever? by saddino · · Score: 1

    If that 7.6 billion year figure is correct, 3D Realms will just miss their delivery window.

  98. Nonsense by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I'm sure we can get the future equivalent of a redneck in his 4x4 Pickup Shuttle to hook a tow wench to Earth and pull it out a bit further.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  99. oh no! panic! by doti · · Score: 1

    So we have only 7 million years to live?

    Oh wait, you said 7 billion.. nevermind then.

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  100. Final Fate Of The Earth? by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    What's the CowboyNeal option?

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  101. bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many bits are needed to represent 7.6 billion years since UNIX Epoch ?

  102. I don't care what HR says..... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    I'm wearing shorts to work THAT day.

  103. Not over any human-relevant time scale by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

    The sun brightens over hundreds of millions of years. Anthropogenic climate change happens over tens, hundreds, or thousands of years. By the time the sun gets brighter to any noticeable degree, we won't be here to notice it.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  104. puff puff pass, nigga! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bogart that shit!

  105. Shell burning, not helium fusion by Latent+Heat · · Score: 4, Informative
    What is this business about helium fusion in the red giant phase?

    Unless there are some revisions in the laws of physics, the nuclear processes throughout stellar evolution are well known based on computer models.

    When helium "ash" accumulates in the core, helium fusion is not the next thing that happens. The core starts contracting and heating up, but that lights off H2 fusion in the shell surrounding the core. That phenomenon changes the luminosity and heat transfer rates of the star, causing the outer atmosphere to swell up into the red giant stage.

    When shell burning runs its course, again the core contracts and heats up some more, resulting in the helium flash. Based on computer models, the helium flash is a major disruptive event caused by the sudden onset of helium fusion, it does not cause the star to go nova or anything, but it causes the star to change modes as it were, becoming somewhat bluer and smaller, but still more luminous than Main Sequence. From the computer models, it is believed that the upper-righthand HR diagram stars, red giants, are H2 shell burners while the horizontal branch above the Main Sequence represents He core burners.

    For a massive enough star, exhaustion of core He will initiate shell He ignition, sending the star back into the red giant range, perhaps as a red supergiant for a massive star.

    The red giant phase is only one phase of an evolved star. Everyone just kind of assumed that a star that goes supernova would be a red giant, but it seems like the star that popped off in Supernova 1987a in the LMS was blue.

    1. Re:Shell burning, not helium fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Searching back further into my memory, I think you're right. I stand corrected. The main point still stands though: it was thought that the earth would escape a death spiral into the sun.

      Of course, our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova, and nova, if I understand right, is something it couldn't do until it reached the white dwarf phase, assuming it has someplace to steal spare hydrogen. Blowing off a planetary nebular is more..."conventional" than a supernova. And I don't think H2 can exist at the temperature of the sun...it should be ionized hydrogen.

    2. Re:Shell burning, not helium fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think that the sun will experience a helium flash because its center matter will not be degenerate enough for it to happen.

  106. Earth will be dead before then by kannibul · · Score: 1

    According to what I've read and seen on TV, the core of the Earth will solidify at some point before the Sun turns to a Red Giant. Once that happens, Earth will look roughly like what Mars looks like. Don't bother trying to move the planet, it won't help.

  107. Im Cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aww man...i was going to freeze myself for 7.7 billion years. Now what am i going to do?!

  108. And this is new news how? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I was told this in 3rd grade (1985) ... why is this here? Did they reconfirm the same thing that they knew 20 years ago? This is sort of like the studies that confirm eating too much makes you fat.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:And this is new news how? by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      Same here. I remember reading this in a book when I was still in grade school too.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
  109. Born again!!! by Cumanes-alpha · · Score: 1

    What a relief, I thought the Earth would be destroyed in 7.5 Billion Years!!!

  110. Holy Crap! We gotta do something!! by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 1

    I mean, over the next several billion years, there's absolutely nothing that could change to alter our calculations!!

  111. Re:oh no! panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to make it a little harder to sell the house.

  112. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "However, new calculations, which take into account tidal forces and drag from mass shed by the sun, suggest that the earth will have sufficiently slowed in that time to be dragged down to its utter destruction in 7.6 billion years. "

    A poor time to be a Highlander.

  113. how disappointing... by chinard · · Score: 1

    I already have my Sub-Etha Signalling Device and towel ready for the Vogon fleet that was supposed to destroy the earth and now this happens.
    Anybody know if i can get a refund from Sirius Cybernetics?

  114. OH CRAP!!!!!1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was pretty worried, for a minute. And then I realized that I misread the article as 7.6 MILLION years. 7.6 billion? No sweat.

  115. Phew! by Goldarn · · Score: 1

    7.6 billion years? For a minute, I thought you said 7.6 million years.

    Words can't express my relief.

  116. 50 Years Ago by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    I read exactly the same thing in one of the very excellent series of childrens' science books, The Golden Book of Astronomy. It had things wrong, such as the moon forming from a bulge in the then molten Earth, but I remember quite distinctly the fate of the Earth being swallowed up by the expanding sun as it went red giant. I've read the same countless times ever since.

    Yet another example of the sort of science non-story listed in the recent /. article on bad science reporting. If it's a bad science story in the media, it'll be misquoted to increase its FUD value on /.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  117. Gamma ray burst by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

    Since these only last minutes, wouldn't only half the earth (ok, +duration.minutes/(24*60)) be sterilized, the back face being spared the direct blast?

    1. Re:Gamma ray burst by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Gamma radiation will pass easily through the whole globe, probably doing some really nasty things to nuclei of some atoms on its way.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  118. So it's under the "surface" - so what? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    They thought for a little while that the Earth might just make it, but now it's pretty clear to everybody that's not going to happen.

    OK, so the earth will apparently orbit under the "surface" of the eventual red dwarf rather than above it.

    So what?

    I was under the impression that the outer regions of a red dwarf are REALLY tenuous - more like a solar wind that happens to include some low-velocity excited neutral atoms that glow as they rise to a limited altitude and then fall back.

    Do these atoms deposit enough heat by conduction and radiation to heat the planet's surface to a similar red glow? Or are they (as I had thought) a minor nuisance - something like trying to warm yourself by the light from a neon sign?

    I Am Not An Astrophysicist. So what's the story?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:So it's under the "surface" - so what? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I would be more worried about the drag myself from being under the surface. I would assume that it would be significant enough to pull the Earth down into a progressively lower and lower orbit given a few million years.

    2. Re:So it's under the "surface" - so what? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I would be more worried about the drag myself from being under the surface. I would assume that it would be significant enough to pull the Earth down into a progressively lower and lower orbit given a few million years.

      Depends on the spin rate of the star and its alignment with the planet.

      With the star spinning in the same direction as the planet's orbit and spinning more than one rev per year the drag RAISES the planet's orbit. (This is the case with the Sun and earth currently - and perhaps also once the Sun expands into a red dwarf, with the bulk of its mass in the inner core which shrinks and speeds up.)

      The Earth/Moon system works the same way, except that the drag is gravitational, from tidal friction. The Earth gradually slows down and the Moon gradually moves farther out.

      For that matter, the Sun/Earth system is also working that way now - though MUCH slower than the Earth/Moon system - due to tides in the Sun from the Earth's gravity.

      It's not unreasonable to expect red dwarf material at a given altitude to be moving at roughly the orbital rate for that altitude, given that the pressure from below is a pretty hard vacuum and provides negligible support. In fact it's not unreasonable to expect it to be averaging a bit FASTER than the orbital velocity, given that some of it is moving out to fly away as solar wind.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  119. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that on a thursday ? Cause I've kinda laid plans....

  120. Fire and Ice by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I've tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    --- Robert Frost

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  121. Um Asteroid... by Vexor · · Score: 1

    Except when we all die in 2035 from the asteroid.

    --
    ~Vexed and loving it!
  122. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait didn't we already know this? Doesn't everyone here watch Doctor Who?

  123. What did you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Did you say million or billion?"

    "I said billion."

    "Oh! I am relieved."

  124. Earth to be destroyed?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egad, I hope not! That's where I keep all my stuff!

  125. Wrong George! by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    Moving to Mars won't work.
    You have been misinformed, yet again.
    RR

  126. Earth to KDawson- Helloo? by aqk · · Score: 1

    Hello...

    I heard and read all this shit 50+ years ago, when I was a teenager.

    What is this- a slow /. day?
    Grrr... In Soviet Earth, we will swallow SUN!
    I, for one, bow... awww... fuck it.


  127. Re:Heat up? Time to VOTE! by aqk · · Score: 1

    I know it's too late to stop this BS global warming, or for that matter the entropic solar cooling- but AFAIConcerned, the Earth is a pretty damn inhospitable place now!
    /.ers? Lets have a vote!