Event Horizon - the other side

It does not.

Does a helium balloon mass as much as a bowling ball?

Did you know that Saturn - despite being the second largest planet in our solar system - is so rarefied that it would float in water?

Mass and size are related by density.

The sun's mass will stay the same, but when its volume increases, it will get less dense. Like a souffle in the oven, it will puff up and get fluffy.

(The reason its volume will increase has to do with the life cycle of stars and how they use fusion to stay starlike, simplistically, when the fusion stops, the star is not longer bound to its main sequence form and expands into a large diffuse star with a vast atmosphere.)
You can read a little about it on Wki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your focus in the first few posts was on rebirth and beliefs and such. If not religious in nature, those thoughts might be better suited to Free Thoughts, a forum where one is free to talk about things without the same expectation of being challenged to defend them with facts. That's all I'm doing here in the Astro/Cosmo forum is challenging notions that aren't based in fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here you go:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what time is it in nepal

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cool, so mass equates to density and size equates to volume, and since the sun is burning it's fuel, which consist of gasses, it won't gain density, but rather volume which is why it will appear to be bigger and be hotter than it is today.

If this is the case, its mass will not change from the burning of it's fuel ... Is that correct? If its mass will change then so will our orbit due to less gravitational pull. How do we know it will not change mass?

 

My focus was on the continuation of life via evolutionary processes. I deemed it a rebirth based on our history here as an evolving planet. Water, sun, and well the seeds of life present here would make this probable after all. Add to these another explosive type of spin out and gravity and the channels available after would eventually lead to a reunion of sorts...I would think. You know, for the formation of life again via evolutionary processes.

 

I had a pocket full of change and I used a change separater to channel each type to a certain area. It works much better than a jar and picking them out one by one by hand.

I'm simply suggesting that particles tend to follow the paths of least resistance automatically. In this case or rather utilizing this concept with planets as if they were particles, each with their own unique properties, the channels and flow of it all should dictate appropriate placement for new life to begin again again ... Ya know?

 

Wellllll, it wasn't really stated as such. Darwinian evolution only applies to living creatures. If they're dead - perhaps because they've been vaporized by a red giant sun or fallen into a black hole - then evolution stops.

There might be physics that comes from the rebirth of new stars that come from the evaporation of a black hole many trillions of years on the future, but that's why it's important in a hard science forum like Astro/Cosmo to be particular with your terms and explicit in your intent.

No seeds of life after being vaporized by a red giant sun or falling into a black hole. You're lucky if you have atoms left, never mind molecules.

 

Yah. Definitely belongs in Free Thoughts and not in a science subforum.

 

You're suggesting then that the channels here on earth, the many layers of sediments, down to our crystal iron core won't have any bearing on life here or contain any remnants of. The recycle and the separating processes are pretty cool that take place here. Things settle as each new layer is formed and organic matter utilized for whatever reason, then on to decomposition and decaying processes of minerals, etc. All these are full of the remnants of past life, even our fossil fuels. This planet is alive in and of itself, and when it's consumed by the sun it will still have remnants of what it consists of, which enabled it to foster life to begin with. The sun will more than likely transform it all into other states, but it will never truly just go away into a non existent state of nothing. This implies to me that life will still be able to form from what is consumed by the sun when appropriate conditions are met once again.

Like I suggested, it may be trillions of years after, but what's a trillion years to a sleeping, unaware - yet to be living organism?

The channels illustration is physics in play which will be part of a big crunch process and/or big bang type event.

 

Free thought forum and not this one - again, you're suggesting a move of a thread dealing with known and validated concepts dealing with a future event that correlates to our evolutionary history, including the formation of the universe and the evolution of life on this specific planet. I'm curious... Umm, what is it about this thread that makes it less appropriate than say a proposed theory or rather model about energy and anti energy?

Maybe it's in my articulation or maybe you just view my inquiry as being unrealistic or maybe your idea of physics wouldn't apply to the viewing of planets as if they acted in like manner as particles, based on composition and properties. I'm unsure your contention with this thread. Or maybe, I need to move on to another venue and perhaps find people of a more understanding mind for this discourse.

 

It will be atoms. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, iron. And they will stay in the sun - as a white dwarf - for somewhere north of 100 trillion years - after hwich is will be a rock at near absolute zero. No life will come form that.

If it falls into back hole, it will never come out.

It won't become "nothing"; it will become nothing usable. Life requires heat. There will be no heat here; it will be frozen at near absolute zero for etrnity.

They won't be. Not here.
Elsewhere, perhaps - other stars - but not here.

Dead organisms that have been vaporized by an expanding sun and then frozen into a white dwarf till the end of the universe are not "sleeping"; they are dead - forever - and the molecules have disintegrated into their component atoms.

 

I've been pretty clear.

That would be to your benefit, yes.

 

Atoms is a curious term isn't it? The atomic structure of carbon for example or quartz, etc. As for binders ... Well, I guess that all comes with environmental relevancies, such as magnetism, or even electro magnetism, but then life does consist of a bunch of atoms bound together in particular sequences and what not.

 

Would it?

 

Since this forum is specifically attuned for the cosmos, and I would think the study of, then what about consciousness itself and those who see the cosmos as being mental like a mind and energy being transferred from one part to other parts acting much like our own brains?

You suggest dead is dead and nothingness after the fact, but I'm not so quick to be so convicted with that particular mindset .. ha - no pun intended.

Anyway, I sometimes enjoy sleeping, other times I enjoy being aware. I can't say that after I die I'll ever be the same, nor that I'll retain my identity, but I might suggest that we are part of that mental tapestry that is consciousness. It is turning into one hell of a ride, but perhaps it'll become more pleasant sometime in the future for the living. It's not terrible, but it has been difficult to date.

 

Yes.

You literally said:

Why would you suggest something you think will benefit you, and then when I agree, you ask if it would benefit you? Are you playing games?

 

The Astro/Cosmos forum is not for discussion of consciousness or mind. That might be beter served in the Pseudoscience forum.

No suggestion about it. Dead really is dead.

Which is perfectly fine. But this subforum is not the place to discuss it because you will be corrected on any counter-factual statements, and challenged to defend any evidenceless beliefs.

 

It's because pulling random ideas out of your arse is not the same thing as doing science.

Science is based on observational evidence. None of these notions of yours is based on observational evidence, nor can they be tested by observation to see if they are right or wrong. So they aren't science - and don't belong in this section. Hence Free Thoughts - or indeed perhaps some other forum for speculative woo.

If you don't know what science is, we can talk about that.

 

How so ... I mean, if this is the place for this type of discussion, and I'm inquiring about these things here, how would it benefit me to leave and go elsewhere unless you here are not educated on the subject?

 

When and if fact are presented I would certainly take them into consideration That's the point and although the universe being mental isn't a often considered prospect, it is and I base this on our perception of it as conscious beings, given we are part of its whole.