English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

They say that the Earth should last for at least 5 billion (5×10^9) more years, before the Sun becomes a red giant, then the earth will be melted into the atmosphere of the Sun.
Can anyone please help prove this theory as a wrong statement, to backup supported judgements of true theory about when the Sun will actually reach Earth or its orbit.

2007-10-25 09:01:39 · 7 answers · asked by Hitesh_M 2 in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

I read this source and considered this proven information as a biased page, of wrong theory in my opinion.
The link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_planet_Earth

2007-10-25 09:03:29 · update #1

7 answers

The theory you talk about is a model based on observation, lab test results, math, physics (lots of physics) & other sciences. All aspects of the model are scrutenized by many people that are experts in their field. They validate or invalidate pieces of the puzzle. As the pieces of the puzzle are put together a theory results. If what you want to do is find the model false then you need to take the pieces of the puzzle and put them together to support your model. You have to make them fit properly and in an ordrely manner otherwise no one will not take you seriously. Some current theories took many years before they were accepted. One such theory was that the universe was static. That was the accepted model. More recently (50-60 years or ago ) expermental data showed the universe is expanding. So models can and do change. If you take too many liberties with the facts though, then the people you want to convince will take you as seriously as the people that believe the world is still flat. It is sometimes a fine line between taken seriously and not taken seriously. If you have good data and a well though out model then people will respect you even if they believe you are wrong.
Good luck.

D.bumstead

2007-10-25 16:44:29 · answer #1 · answered by d.bumstead@sbcglobal.net 3 · 0 0

5 billion sounds a little long to me, I always remeber it being more like 3 billion. Other than that, it's a pretty standard idea on how the earth will end.

Of course, many many things could happen before that to end human life (which many consider "the end of the earth") such as a huge asteroid, global warming, pollution or whatever. But that is impossible to predict with any accuracy, only probabilty. For instance, the earth has been through 5 major die-offs in the past 500 million years. So the odds are there will be another.

But the actual end of the planet will likely only happen when the sun is close enough that the gases create friction on our orbit and we fall slowly into the sun.

2007-10-25 16:30:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Uhh...it is correct that the sun approximately 5 billion years from now will begin helium fusion, become a red giant and either engulf the Earth or at least it'll get close enough to burn the surface. That would be the end of all life as we know it on Earth.

2007-10-25 16:08:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If you're talking about the 2012 predictions, I don't think they mean the actual earth itself will end. It and everything on it is going through major changes right now, and they forcast a certain "tipping point" when a new era arrives. Some say civilization as we know it will end, but human life will continue in a different (and more enlightened) role. It's happened many times before, and will probably happen many more times before the planet itself it actually "dead".

Sorry, but I'm too lazy right now to put together all the references together for you. :)

2007-10-25 16:31:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I am sorry but I think they are right,5 Bil until then,however we should do our self's in way before then,so it would not matter.
I am assuming that astronomers have some evidence of what they say,
,they are not known to state false statements or guesses.

2007-10-25 16:37:45 · answer #5 · answered by izzie 5 · 0 0

That statement is based on observations of the sun and of other stars, and on the life-cycle stages OF stars. I would go with their estimate. You didn't give YOUR estimate, nor list why you have your own or feel theirs is wrong. Show your supporting data and calculations and we will discuss things a bit deeper.

2007-10-25 16:16:10 · answer #6 · answered by Stephen H 5 · 0 0

Perhaps you could explain WHY you think the conclusion reached by the astronomical community is wrong. What basis do you use to come to your conclusions?

2007-10-25 16:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by Jason T 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers