2012?

[Yugo]

Time is unidirectional.

[Valynth]

Considering that time is nothing but an ordered series of cause and effect events, yes, it can only get longer.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Time?  Time is an illusion.  Lunch time, doubly so.

[Valynth]

But I want to Beliiieeeve!

[Aridas]

Time?  Time is an illusion.  Lunch time, doubly so.

Is it an illusion... of gaia?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Time?  Time is an illusion.  Lunch time, doubly so.

Is it an illusion... of gaia?

No, of Douglas Adams. ;-]

[Alondro]

Red dwarf stars will be the last stellar lifeboats in the universe!  Even though they're much smaller than the Sun, they burn their hydrogen fuel so slowly that they won't run out for TRILLIONS of years!  *and now you know, and knowing is half the battle!  GI JOE!*

Atmosphere is very complex.  Titan's atmosphere is 9 times denser than Earth's even though it's gravity is only about the same as the Moon's.  It's mostly nitrogen, and kept in place mainly by the extreme cold and low energetic particle flux of the solar winds at that distance from the Sun.  I believe a dense atmosphere can exist stabily on a planet of Earth's distance from the Sun with only about half the gravity.  We just don't have a planet of that size to look at.  Mars is much lower in mass than Earth or Venus, with only about 1/3 the gravity.

And gravity is a function of mass and density.  Magma has nothing to do with it.  Convection currents in the Earth's core are responsible for the dynamo-induced magnetic field, not the gravity.  As example:  Mars is virtually geologically dead, and has only tiny localized magnetic field zones across its surface, relics of its ancient days of activity frozen in place.  Yet it still maintains a gravitational force in keeping with its smaller mass.

What was that I said earlier about education being rather useful for this sort of thing?   

[superluser]

Red dwarf stars will be the last stellar lifeboats in the universe!  Even though they're much smaller than the Sun, they burn their hydrogen fuel so slowly that they won't run out for TRILLIONS of years!

Usually, I accept the theoretical model, but `trillions?'  The universe is barely 10 billion years old (13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr).  I don't think that models based on observations that we could not possibly have made extrapolated out to two orders of magnitude longer than the universe has existed can be assumed to be correct.  In just the past decade, the solution of the solar neutrino anomaly changed our understanding of how the Sun works.  A trillion years is a very long time.

Is it an illusion... of gaia?

You get a cookie for the Lovelock reference, but you lose that cookie for missing the Douglas Adams reference.

PS Haz--you should send that into the Reader's Digest.  They've got a place for people like you.

[Stygian]

You know, I especially find the "F*CK!" horror scenario on this site to be most entertaining. It just makes one go all warm inside. And then it hopefully makes one want to start to live holistically, work out, eat right, screw right and get plenty of rest.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Considering that time is nothing but an ordered series of cause and effect events, yes, it can only get longer.

Well, if they can find enough mass in the universe, then time and space will curve enough that time will be a circle.  But they're still trying to find dark matter in the blackness of space.

So the current estimate of the Age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years...and the Red dwarfs can stay burning for trillions of years because estimated the rate of fusion burn to mass available ...

And Yeah I find Doomsday Scenarios fun too....

PBH

[KarlOmega1]

Question, if the polar shift could cause a gravitational shift...what effects could it have on the moon?

[Yugo]

Dark matter's presence is inferred by how its mass affects other visible matter through gravity. It exists, but it can only be observed indirectly. We could go much more in-depth with this, but I'd rather just point you in the direction of the dark matter wikipedia page.

[Aridas]

Time?  Time is an illusion.  Lunch time, doubly so.

Is it an illusion... of gaia?

No, of Douglas Adams. ;-]

My reference is more obscure and convoluted than yours.

[Valynth]

Time?  Time is an illusion.  Lunch time, doubly so.

Is it an illusion... of gaia?

No, of Douglas Adams. ;-]

My reference is more obscure and convoluted than yours.

Not really, I played "both games" (Illusion of time and Illusion of Gaia)

Why the hell for the two names, I will never know

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Question, if the polar shift could cause a gravitational shift...what effects could it have on the moon?

None:  The moon is already pulling away from the earth about one-two inch per a year (Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year (Dickey et al., 1994)).
It has been pulling away from Earth since the begin of the Earth-Luna system with the rate of the outward spiral increasing over the last 2.5 billion years

  Magnetism has no effect on gravition until magnetism pulls more mass to the center of a gravity well. which Adds more mass so more gravity.   And I am sorry but the earth gravity well would pull in a meteor with an iron core first before the earth's magnetic field pulled it in. 

The Polar shift is only the flipping of the Earth's magnetic polars, N=>s S=>n, which will most like have wildly effect the Earth's Magnetic field in Space until it can rebuilt the line of flex into its normal shape.  The problem is the magnetic field of the Earth shields the surface from much of the charged particles and such from the SUN.

An interesting note on topic: Sun's also has Polar shifts:
The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork.   This is the peak of Solar-storms and flares, too

Earth's magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur.

PBH

Edit:  My mistake Polar Shift is not the Geomagnetic shift, which is the flipping of the magnetic poles and yet some think would have an affect on the Earth's rotation somehow.   Of which, there is no proof of it happening in the past on earth.

[superluser]

My reference is more obscure and convoluted than yours.

Wait.  Your reference wasn't to Lovelock after all?  Boo!  This thread is useless without Lovelock!

[GabrielsThoughts]

wait, so if global warming will cause the temperatures to skyrocket, and an asteroid will block out the sun, cause an earthwide cloud of debris forcing temperatures to plumit, then does that mean by the time it hits the temperatures will even out?

[superluser]

wait, so if global warming will cause the temperatures to skyrocket, and an asteroid will block out the sun, cause an earthwide cloud of debris forcing temperatures to plumit, then does that mean by the time it hits the temperatures will even out?

You're forgetting rickets.

[bill]

wait, so if global warming will cause the temperatures to skyrocket, and an asteroid will block out the sun, cause an earthwide cloud of debris forcing temperatures to plumit, then does that mean by the time it hits the temperatures will even out?

I wouldn't wager on it.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

In the history of the Earth, it is widely accepted that several large meteorites have hit Earth. The Cretaceous-Tertiary asteroid, for example, is theorized to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. If such an object struck the Earth it could have a serious impact on civilization. It's even possible that humanity would be completely destroyed: for this, the asteroid would need to be at least 1 km (0.6 miles) in diameter, but probably between 3–10 km (2–6 miles). asteroids with a 1 km diameter impact the Earth every 0.5 million years on average. Larger asteroids are less common. The last large (>10 km) impact happened 65 million years ago, which took out the dinos. So-called Near-Earth asteroids are regularly being observed crossing the Earth Orbit, so it could happen at any time from some unknown asteroid, we have not discovered yet.  

Now, the dust and smoke from a 1km meteor would block out the sun for about 10 years or more. and that would be bad of the plants and crops.  So even if the temperatures didn't go down, which they will, you will still need something to eat for the short term, and something to take the CO2 out of the air in the long term (as plants will die without sunlight.)  So, Using a meteor to stop global warming is like using all the water from Hover Dam to put out a forest fire.  Sure the fire will be out, but the forest will be gone with the flood along with your house, and the town.


There are other lesser know doomsday events possible.  
A very recent threat is the Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon that might foreshadow the imminent extinction of the Western Honey Bee. As the bee plays a vital role in pollination, its extinction would severely disrupt the food chain. Albert Einstein once said, "If the bees should die, humankind would have but four more years to live."

or

Just social collapse...one scenario involves the complete breakdown of civilization as the effects of climate change become more pronounced, competition for scarce resources increases, and the rift between the poor and the wealthy widens.  The War on Poverty may use up more resource faster as you get everyone up to US or western standards of living, (which are wasteful to begin with), and give it to a overpopulated world which can't feed everyone already.  Climate change will mean lower crop yields with more flooding and drought.  Higher energy needs to transport goods to everyone in the world.

    Example- the Eastern Island scenario, Its civilisation collapse into cannibalism, as the leaders pushed for more Stone Idols to honor dead ancestors.  This process used up all the soft wood forests, that could have been use to built boats for fishing or escaping the isolated island.

PBH

[Boog]

There may be endings for cultures, but I don't think all of humanity is in any particular amount of danger. As mentioned many times, people thought the world would end thousands of times before, and will continue to expect fiery death to rain from the skies for whatever reason. It's a concept that seems to fascinate people (doubly so when this apocalypse is populated by zombies). It would just be too difficult to wipe out everyone. Technology grinds to a halt for some reason? Tribes somewhere in the amazon that wouldn't know aa cellular phone from a lumpy rock. Meteor shower? Wouldn't hit everything, and whatever dust was kicked up could be waited out in bunkers. Nuclear war? Mutated, but alive, and there are few rulers who would really be that dumb. And so on and so forth.

[bill]

You forgot IceNine. In that case, we're screwed. 

[Prof B Hunnydew]

You forgot IceNine. In that case, we're screwed. 

But we have not even found any substance that is even close to IceNine at temperatures above 32F degree.

But Okay...Isn't the collapse of our high tech civilization bad enough?  Or does have the extinction of the human species?  or does it need to be the end of all life on Earth to be a Doomsday?

PBH

[Boog]

It wouldn't be the end of high tech civilization, because technology can be rediscovered. And what I'm saying is there will never be an end to life on earth. What wiped out the dinosaurs left behind little squeeky things that eventually became us. Besides, we're really too tenacious to be completely wiped out.

[ITOS]

"high tech"

It wouldn't be the end of high tech civilization, because technology can be rediscovered.

Yeah, even if all the factories and powerplants were to be dissabled the information humans have gathered still wouldn't be totally lost, just the means to use the information. So even if humanity gets knocked back to the stoneage, the development would go much faster from there than it did the first time.

"So you are going to destroy the civilisation as we know it?"
"I honestly won't miss it."

[KarlOmega1]

"high tech"

It wouldn't be the end of high tech civilization, because technology can be rediscovered.

Yeah, even if all the factories and powerplants were to be dissabled the information humans have gathered still wouldn't be totally lost, just the means to use the information. So even if humanity gets knocked back to the stoneage, the development would go much faster from there than it did the first time.

You're forgetting the human condition...humans could panic and likely forget the information...which will halter such rebuilding of society. I'd be surprised if we don't panic.

[Valynth]

"high tech"

It wouldn't be the end of high tech civilization, because technology can be rediscovered.

Yeah, even if all the factories and powerplants were to be dissabled the information humans have gathered still wouldn't be totally lost, just the means to use the information. So even if humanity gets knocked back to the stoneage, the development would go much faster from there than it did the first time.

You're forgetting the human condition...humans could panic and likely forget the information...which will halter such rebuilding of society. I'd be surprised if we don't panic.

All it takes to get people out of a panic is a strong leader, and they're the most likely to survive of all humanity.  As such, panicing does not mean we'll forget the information.  After all, there might still be a library or two still standing full of the "how we did it" books.  I always knew there was a reason I approved of libraries.

The main problem with a panicing populace isn't that they'll forget the tech, but that a Hitler-ish type of leader will come to power.

[ITOS]

You're forgetting the human condition...humans could panic and likely forget the information...which will halter such rebuilding of society. I'd be surprised if we don't panic.

Panic would be a first reaction but I'm sure some would think of securing information, especially if it's something we can see coming such as a asteroid. The worst threat against information is really a slow doom that goes on for generations and that you don't notice until everything is already lost.

Oh, and what Valynth said is good too.

[Zedd]

Oh okays everyone has a theory on how the world will end...ANd I think will end with nuttness and insanity lead by Brian Bress werid modern art and dramaticness! Beware most or some his stuff is labeled NSFW for sane peoples!

[Alondro]

There will be a library left... but only one guy to read all the books... and he's gonna break his glasses...    *obvious reference for sci-fi geeks!*