I was watching something on the History Channel about old seers predicting the end of the world and certain artifacts stating precisely it would be in 2012...what do you think about this?
December 23rd, 2012?
Well, that's one way to solve Global Warming.
If you're referring to the Aztec thingie, it's kinda a debate, or so I've heard. Some people think that it's the end of the word. Others think that it just means the entire wheel goes back to the beginning again.
At least, so I've heard.
This goes hand in hand with astronomers preditcing that in the year 2020-28 a potentially disasterous asteroid will come between earth and our communications satelites. However, this asteroid shouldn't hit the earth. Still, in galatic terms it's a close shave.
According to them at least. Personally I say: Who cares? Lets just live life and deal with global disasters when they come.
Also, I predict Iran's nuclear program will be the key to global destruction(or at least heavily linked to it). Since, you know, they don't want the rest of the world to know whether it's secured or not.
How often has the world gone past a date on which the world was supposed to end? I've lost count.
I'd say in the neighborhood of 150, but thats not including the cults who rely on the actions of rituals rather than set dates.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 03, 2007, 03:32:53 PM
If you're referring to the Aztec thingie, it's kinda a debate, or so I've heard. Some people think that it's the end of the word. Others think that it just means the entire wheel goes back to the beginning again.
At least, so I've heard.
Sounds like what I've heard...that their "world" is something like our millennium; that is, a period of time.
Then again, didn't the
Aztec world already end? Or am I getting my history wrong?
Quote from: modelincard on March 03, 2007, 04:04:22 PM
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 03, 2007, 03:32:53 PM
If you're referring to the Aztec thingie, it's kinda a debate, or so I've heard. Some people think that it's the end of the word. Others think that it just means the entire wheel goes back to the beginning again.
At least, so I've heard.
Sounds like what I've heard...that their "world" is something like our millennium; that is, a period of time.
Then again, didn't the Aztec world already end? Or am I getting my history wrong?
Acctually, the Aztecs believed that time was in the form of a circle that would repeat on itself(ie. Begining of the Aztecs, end of the Aztecs, begining of another country, ect.). They had several wheels, one for the year, one for the Aztec empire, and one for the world. Everytime the wheel moved around, the entire world was supposed to restart at the very begining. In short this would require that all civilization as we know it to end and a new one would form at the very begining of history.
Im sure the Aztecs where right about this one
Quote from: Valynth on March 03, 2007, 04:14:23 PM
Acctually, the Aztecs believed that time was in the form of a circle that would repeat on itself(ie. Begining of the Aztecs, end of the Aztecs, begining of another country, ect.). They had several wheels, one for the year, one for the Aztec empire, and one for the world. Everytime the wheel moved around, the entire world was supposed to restart at the very begining. In short this would require that all civilization as we know it to end and a new one would form at the very begining of history.
I can see that happening, yes.
supposedly the world has had about a half a dozen 'doomsdays' happen already, it seems that humanity felt it was not time to go quietly into the night and found ways around it. what we call doomsdays are more or less tests, just like coming up is a giant meteor that will collide with earth in about 25 years. thing is that it only enters the threat range of earth by ONE MILE and if we can shift it that one measly mile in the next twenty years or so it wont be caught in our gravity well and will miss us completely.
i for one gladly wait Ragnarök, happy that the cosmic forces set to smear humanity across the cosmos never foresaw such things as neutron bombs, Paladin artilery units, and depleted uranium rounds.
QuoteIf at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Actually... I thought it was The Mayas (http://www.exitmundi.nl/Maya.htm)
http://survive2012.com/
http://alignment2012.com/
I love google.
Did you know that the devil cares about the number 666 and therefore appeared to destroy us all on June 6, 0006, June 6, 1006, and June 6, 2006? O:
And and and that aliens came to Earth on new year's day of 2000 and everyone declared war? O:
Nothing's gonna happen on any specific date. Aside from something like plotting the course of a body in space. But even then, it doesn't mean all will go as it should.
Quote from: Kenji on March 03, 2007, 05:17:58 PM
Did you know that the devil cares about the number 666 and therefore appeared to destroy us all on June 6, 0006, June 6, 1006, and June 6, 2006? O:
And and and that aliens came to Earth on new year's day of 2000 and everyone declared war? O:
Nothing's gonna happen on any specific date. Aside from something like plotting the course of a body in space. But even then, it doesn't mean all will go as it should.
Heh, Agreed.
But...
http://www.exitmundi.nl/
But there are a lot of end of the world scenarios out there ;3
There's a lot of cartoons, too. Are they gonna come true?
YES.
Freaking. Sweet.
Giant robots and freaky super powers galore!
I saw the same program
they say the 2012 date repeats in more then one text..
htey say it can be found in the I ching and a few other sources like mother shipton, and the prophecies of merlin.
*shrugs*
but the section that cought my eye was that astronimers agree that in 2012 the solar system will come into a very rare alingment with the center of the galaxy. They think this might be the start of the solar system moving across the galactic equator. They say this could cause the earth poles to shift. Which is something thats happened before.
The graviational effect of the center of the galaxy on the Earth is so weak it doesn't even enter into the calculations of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Our planet has far more graviational influence upon it from the Sun and the Moon that any other object in space. Even a complete alignment of all the planets causes a graviational shift so tiny it can only be detected on highly sensitive equipment.
This prediction is a load of crap, like every other one of its kind. I despise the programs that get a bunch of pseudoscientists together and pretend to talk about 'facts'.
This is why education is so important. Smart people aren't taken in by something this stupid.
Quote from: thegayhare on March 03, 2007, 07:05:13 PM
I saw the same program
they say the 2012 date repeats in more then one text..
htey say it can be found in the I ching and a few other sources like mother shipton, and the prophecies of merlin.
*shrugs*
but the section that cought my eye was that astronimers agree that in 2012 the solar system will come into a very rare alingment with the center of the galaxy. They think this might be the start of the solar system moving across the galactic equator. They say this could cause the earth poles to shift. Which is something thats happened before.
Yeah, they said sometihng about the poles shifting were the earth might change the way it spins...the animation the had on the screen madie it look like the earth flipped onto its side.
To Alondro: I know it may be Improbable, but it's not impossible...give these people a benefit of a doubt.
Also, earth's gravity is controlled by the flows of liquid rock beneath the earth's crust. Hypothetically, if you drill deep enough you might be able to shift the liquid rock and therefore gravity.
Unfortunately we can't dig that deep so....
Um, I'm quite sure that Earth's gravity is controlled by it's mass.
Quote from: Valynth on March 03, 2007, 08:00:01 PM
Also, earth's gravity is controlled by the flows of liquid rock beneath the earth's crust. Hypothetically, if you drill deep enough you might be able to shift the liquid rock and therefore gravity.
Unfortunately we can't dig that deep so....
You mean to say that volcanoes control gravity? Who knew?
That and last I checked, "unfortunately" isn't a word that should be used about people not being able to manipulate the very earth itself.
April 15, 2013 you will still be around to meet the tax deadline. I guarantee it! :doh
I remember when the world ended in 1997.
See, the world was created on 23 October, 4004 at 0600GMT, and since the world was going to end exactly 6000 years later, that worked out to 5 November, 1997. (note that there was no year zero, and Ussher was using the Julian calendar, while we are using the Gregorian)
Oh, the four horsemen were fun, but the best was seeing all the angels with those bowls. They said that they had plagues in them, but I beg to differ.
[edit: oops! The rest was meant for another thread.]
Quote from: HeroZero on March 03, 2007, 08:11:37 PM
Quote from: Valynth on March 03, 2007, 08:00:01 PM
Also, earth's gravity is controlled by the flows of liquid rock beneath the earth's crust. Hypothetically, if you drill deep enough you might be able to shift the liquid rock and therefore gravity.
Unfortunately we can't dig that deep so....
You mean to say that volcanoes control gravity? Who knew?
...No, volcanoes don't control gravity, I'm saying that we'd have to dig very, VERY far down. Volcanoes aren't even scratching at it.
But they do control global warming, like the year without a summer.
EDIT:
Also, we were confusing Aztecs with Mayans. Who knew? I didn't until just recently. And yes, the history channel covered the MAYAN calander with the circles. The Aztecs were a bloodthisty cannibal race who were erradicated by the spanish conquerors.
silly silly scientists, everyone knows the world is gonna end in 2054 due to a level 4 zombie outbreak! those goobers, thinking some silly wheel is gonna destroy us all ^_^
just a question- did they define what they meant by 'the end of the world'?
most often times the 'end of the world' is merely 'the end of life as we know it' and not 'the end of life', frequently its just 'the end of civilization'.
live with the idea that humans are essentially giant cockroaches, someone somewhere will find a way to survive and eventually thrive. supposedly we have what some people call 'the rule of ten percent' which is either the evolutionary holy grail or the grand failsafe god put in us to make sure we don't all die of stupidity. according to this rule of ten percent, if you were to spread the bubonic plague across every city/village/town on the planet at least ten percent of the people would survive and be immune, same is true for any disease, severe radiation, some form of new uberpreadetor, and any poison found in nature (man made ones kinda bend the rules).
end of the world? feh, things will carry on more or less after everyone has some mad max moments and some power struggles as to who is king of the blasted wastelands.
QuoteHumans, why did it have to be humans?
Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on March 04, 2007, 12:38:20 AM
just a question- did they define what they meant by 'the end of the world'?
most often times the 'end of the world' is merely 'the end of life as we know it' and not 'the end of life', frequently its just 'the end of civilization'.
live with the idea that humans are essentially giant cockroaches, someone somewhere will find a way to survive and eventually thrive. supposedly we have what some people call 'the rule of ten percent' which is either the evolutionary holy grail or the grand failsafe god put in us to make sure we don't all die of stupidity. according to this rule of ten percent, if you were to spread the bubonic plague across every city/village/town on the planet at least ten percent of the people would survive and be immune, same is true for any disease, severe radiation, some form of new uberpreadetor, and any poison found in nature (man made ones kinda bend the rules).
end of the world? feh, things will carry on more or less after everyone has some mad max moments and some power struggles as to who is king of the blasted wastelands.
QuoteHumans, why did it have to be humans?
Find complex life forms that live without oxygen and then we'll talk. Until then I still say that a loss of atmosphere(by loss of gravity) will destroy EVERYTHING.
I have no problem at all believing that organisms could exist that don't breathe oxygen. Up until just recently, it was thought that all life-forms depended on sun light in one way or another.
one word....huitzel :U
Quote from: HaZ×MaT on March 04, 2007, 01:05:00 AM
I have no problem at all believing that organisms could exist that don't breathe oxygen. Up until just recently, it was thought that all life-forms depended on sun light in one way or another.
I award you the title of Mr. Space Bacteria.
Quote from: Valynth on March 04, 2007, 12:47:01 AM
Find complex life forms that live without oxygen and then we'll talk. Until then I still say that a loss of atmosphere(by loss of gravity) will destroy EVERYTHING.
... I'm still at a loss as to how you believe gravity (which is a result of mass, according to almost all physicists) is going to be lost, without removing large chunks of the planet.
And I'm talking not just the surface, here. You'd have to pull out a decent sized chunk of the magma, if not down as far as the iron core, before you made any significant change in the gravity measurable at the earth's surface. I'm not sure you grasp just how big the planet really is - I'm talking you'd have to remove something the size of the USA, down an equivalent depth - and the disruption from even attempting something like that would likely destroy the entire rest of the planet, so why you'd want to even try I don't know. Let's not go into just how much energy you'd have to use to get it out of the earth's gravity well....
the majority of the earths mass, and therefore gravity, is from the very core of the earth- which is made out of molten nickel and iron, very heavy elements to begin with and they're being compressed incredibly by the layers of molten rock above them. you wouldn't think that essentially liquid steel would be able to be mushed into 3/4 its original size would you?
also, many life forms need no sunlight. examples are those freaky red tube worms in the bottom of the oceans far past any sunlight. they look like whole bushes of phalluses and get their energy and nutrients by chemical reactions made possible by geothermal vents. also the majority of bacteria (supposedly the original brand of life, green plants were an invasive mutation) die very quickly when exposed to sunlight or oxygen. yeast is also among these.
QuoteErnest Hemingway -
- But did thee feel the earth move?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 04, 2007, 05:26:36 AMLet's not go into just how much energy you'd have to use to get it out of the earth's gravity well....
In fact, you'd probably be better off making rockets powerful enough to lift something so large, and forgetting to take the chunk of the Earth along with you.
Attach the rockets to the offending asteroid, and you'll wind up moving it more than you could by reducing the Earth's gravity.
Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on March 04, 2007, 08:31:21 AMyou wouldn't think that essentially liquid steel would be able to be mushed into 3/4 its original size would you?
Well, mushing it isn't going to change anything, since the mass will still be there.
Seriously, if the earth lost enough gravity to lose it's atmosphere, it's probably been effed-up six ways from Sunday anyways.
Spacetime is curved simply by the presence of matter, meaning you would have to destroy the Earth to remove its gravitational effects. To lose its atmosphere, the Earth would have to be destroyed, making it entirely moot.
Quote from: Action Jesus on March 04, 2007, 01:17:33 PMSpacetime is curved simply by the presence of matter, meaning you would have to destroy the Earth to remove its gravitational effects. To lose its atmosphere, the Earth would have to be destroyed, making it entirely moot.
I think Newton's law of Universal Gravitation can pretty accurately describe what we're discussing here, so I don't know what tensors have to do with it.
Anyways, you don't need to destroy the Earth, just move parts of it away.
That's one thing that I never got about theories like blowing up the moon (which I alluded to in a different thread (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=2350.0)) to change the gravitational dynamics. The mass is still there--it's just in a billion smaller bits. In fact, if you blew up the moon, it would probably re-form itself as the gravity pulled all the bits toward the center of gravity where the moon used to be. Sure, it would probably be more pear-shaped, and smoother, but the moon would still be there.
And smaller, and a lot of those bits would rain down upon the Earth, and it more than likely wouldn't be in the same orbit so it would either drift away or come crashing into Earth...
Quote from: HaZ×MaT on March 04, 2007, 02:15:07 PMAnd smaller, and a lot of those bits would rain down upon the Earth, and it more than likely wouldn't be in the same orbit so it would either drift away or come crashing into Earth...
Yeah, a bit smaller. It would, however, still be in roughly the same orbit. Just probably moving too fast for that orbit.
Okay, if you changed the gravitational dynamics, you'd still have an atmosphere, because you'd still have gravity. Even if you put the Earth into chunks, those chunks still exert a gravitational force on one another, and the damage you would cause by doing so would probably destroy the Earth anyways.
Quote from: Action Jesus on March 04, 2007, 02:24:32 PMOkay, if you changed the gravitational dynamics, you'd still have an atmosphere, because you'd still have gravity.
QFT. Venus has a mass that's about 80% of ours, and has an atmosphere about 100 times as heavy.
Quote from: Action Jesus on March 04, 2007, 02:24:32 PMEven if you put the Earth into chunks, those chunks still exert a gravitational force on one another
But if you move a chunk away from the Earth, you alter the center of gravity. Also, if you move part of the Earth farther from the asteroid, the gravitational pull of the all of the Earth objects on asteroid the will be smaller, since the distance between the two is larger (F=Gmm/r**2).
Bad stuff will still happen if you do that, but that particular aspect of this psychoceramic theory has some validity.
The sooner the better! But they're all wrong, I'M going to end all life as we know it.
Quote from: superluser on March 04, 2007, 02:48:12 PM
QFT. Venus has a mass that's about 80% of ours, and has an atmosphere about 100 times as heavy.
this is because earths atmosphere is primarily hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. all fairly light elements. Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide, with clouds containing droplets of sulfuric acid along with compounds of chlorine and fluorine. think carbon dioxide is light? its a gas, yes, but its made of carbon, and if you didn't know carbon is very heavy and is used to make things like, oh say, granite. Venus has a heavy atmosphere because its pretty much made of very airy rock.
QuoteWorking in the theater has a lot in common with unemployment.
Quote from: Valynth on March 04, 2007, 12:47:01 AM
Find complex life forms that live without oxygen and then we'll talk. Until then I still say that a loss of atmosphere(by loss of gravity) will destroy EVERYTHING.
Loss of atmosphere is possible, but not by a loss of gravity... The atmosphere could blow away by a massive solar storm, and nearby supernova gamma pulse, (some like 10 light years, but we need to be in the direct line of fire), even a big enough
meteor could crack in the Earth's mantel and boil the atmosphere away....
But there are more likely events,
global warming could go beyond a tipping point and you end up with Venus. This could happen If the frozen methane on the sea floor starts melting because the sea temps get too hot. Methane would bubble up and add to the present or future load of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The Earth's magnetic polars switching, which is about due, could leave the Earth without a magnetic shield for a few days or weeks, against the solar wind and radiation. It may not kill all life but most, and any electronic or electrical device will be fried if not protected in a bombshelter. That would knock technologies back some fifty years or more.
a Giant Solar Flare on a direct course for Earth would do the same thing, and destroying the power grid for 18 months or years, because it would fried tranformers and substation everywhere. Could the US and Canda survive without a electrical power for months, so it could repair the grid or years. Remember when the lights when out in New York City a few years back, think about that across North American everywhere.
Plague-We have HIV now in the Africa which is bringing many nations close to collapes if not for the UN and US Aid If we had a real Pandemic of bird flu or another super flu, it would cover the global before the UN could lock down the airlines. It is estimated a Pandemic would kill upwards of a Billion people or more by itself, how many more would died from other things, like the ecomony or civil law had broken down or health care, as many doctors and nurses would be the first to died of this plague. Well it would help solve global warming, less people = less CO2 in the long run.
Machine RevoltWe are many years from this, but Our machines may one day get too smart for us, they may think we are too out-dated to maintain. We have seen in history that when every a more advance culture meets a underdeveloped one. the underdeveloped one is adsorted or destroyed.
ex- The Matrix, I robot, or Battlestar Galaticia.
Terrorism and warThere are those who can't stand to let anyone live that doesn't agree with them. And if they would willing die for their ideas and you are ready to die for yours. Then there will always be war, and war for a very small group against a larger group has been terrorism. Now-a-days, The trouble is that a very small group of people with a little money and determination could knock the clay feet out of under civilization. Just attrack our technologies and support grids.
"the more pipe, you use in the pumping, the easier it is to glog up the works."- LT CMD Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
PBH
Terrorism is NOT a simple matter of size, terrorism is carrying out militarisc attacks against specific civilian targets using a nation's own freedom to bypass any military defenses.
Quite literally the only way to eliminate terrorists is to eliminate the freedom that they use to attack the civilians.
Also, civilization isn't as weak or unprepared as terrorists might wish to believe, did America collapse as they predicted when the twin towers fell? Hell no.
About the only way that EVERYONE would be killed in a war is if they used nukes or every corrupt dictatorship in the world tried to gang-up on the U.S., U.K., Canada, and pretty much every free nation. Of course this requires a bit of imagination to get all the dictatorships to agree on something and have enough numbers to counteract the massive tech gap.
True
Terrorists so far have proven not very effective in their goals, but they may get lucky and get a or ten nuke, or a super virus from the old USSR stockplies.
The only reason 9-11 was not more effective is because they were stupid and when for the biggest body count. Cargo planes could have been just as effective and just as easy to get as an airliner back in 2001 without passager interference. Flight 93 could have been on course for Capital Hill, if it had not crash in Pennsylvania, or the flight that hit the Pentagon, should have or could have aim for the center court yard and destroyed more of the building. Yet, the surprise attrack has been sprang, and they know we will not stop at not shooting down planes if we must. If our citizens do not fight and kill them first. So they will find somewhere else where our guard is less and they can kill us.
I am just saying the terrorist will get smarter and they find a way to chip away at our society and civilization.
PBH
Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on March 05, 2007, 11:33:46 AM
True
Terrorists as far have proven not very effective in their goals, but they may get lucky and get a nuke, or a super virus from the old USSR stockplies.
The only reason 9-11 was not more effective is because they were stupid and when for the biggest body count. Cargo planes could have been just as effective and just as easy to get as an airliner back in 2001 without passager interference. Flight 93 could have been on course for Capital Hill if it had not crash in Pennsylvania, or the flight that hit the Pentagon, should have or could have aim for the center court yard and destroyed more of the building. The surprise attrack has been sprang, and they know we will not stop at not shooting down planes if we must. If our citizens do not fight and kill them first.
I am just saying the terrorist will get smarter and they find a way to chip away at our society and civilization.
PBH
Assuming society is a stonework is a very dangerous misconception that has lead to the demise of many a civilization. Society is more like a living thing, if you attack it in one way, it will not only regrow the damaged area, but it will take steps to prevent such damage again.
For example, our airline's secruity has been significantly upgraded since then and though not perfect, it is enough to prevent most terrorist attacks.
Also, buildings can be rebuilt very fast, but population cannot. Terrorists are ALWAYS going to attack for the most body count because population is what makes a nation.
Also the speard of HIV in Africa is more because the majority of African nations didn't listen to the U.S. and other's warning and kept on believing that if they have sex with a virgin it would be cured. All nature did was make it, humans spread it.
As you've pointed out, the universe has no end to it's arsenel of things that could eliminate the human race, but fortunately we have yet to encounter the ones we can't stop in a relatively easy manner.
Ah yes, and I can name a few more
Super Volcanos like Yellowstone national park, which could started a "nuclear winter" type scenario
Mass Extinction
A majority of scientists think that we are now in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. At the current rate of die-off, nearly 20 percent of all species on Earth will become extinct within 30 years. As we pollute the air and water, and destroy the species-rich rainforest, and overfish the oceans are we signing our own death warrant.
Back on Top
I believe that the 2012 DEADLINE is not stretch in stone, but we have many dangers that we ourselves made or natural ones which can and will someday kill us... The question is "Will we have the political will and the resources to stop any of them?"
Meteor (Near Earth Object) tracking is a very low fund project, they have the number of people it takes to crew a McDonlds for 24 hours a day finding and tracking space rocks, which we can "see". Could we know of a possible threat in time to stop one? And to stop one with today's tech it would take years to move it off-course with Earth. (maybe 5-10years just to get it off the ground)
PBH
The reason it's such a low funded project is because there really isn't a way for us to stop a meteor from hitting the earth even if we knew it was coming. Essentially knowing about a meteor for too long will cause society to cease to be since huge masses of people will figure "what the hell" and run hog wild in roits and looting.
And yes, volcanoes can cool the earth, just look at the winter without a summer. That should be proof enough that just cause something produces a heck of alot of CO2 doesn't mean it will warm the earth.
Also, there have been great die-offs since before human history, we're just trying not to be included in this one.
Also, CO2 is not a pollutant, plants actually thrive on it. It's the other chemicals made by certain engines that are the real danger to our atmosphere.
CO2 and water are not Pollution, but they are greenhouse gases... And just because they are greenhouse gases, doesn't mean they are bad of the ecosystem, it is the amount of them in the atmosphere that is the problem.. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now, is more than any time in the last 800,000 years.
And we know that CO2 levels were on the decrease during the Little Age period 13-17th centuries..
More CO2 absorbed by the oceans will raise their acidity, and a number of recent studies have concluded that this will eventually disrupt the ability of marine micro-organisms to use the calcium carbonate in the water to produce their hard parts. This means that planton will not be able to survive in a more acidic seawater without their hard parts, and all life in the oceans may not survive.
PBH
Quote from: Valynth on March 05, 2007, 01:17:17 PM
The reason it's such a low funded project is because there really isn't a way for us to stop a meteor from hitting the earth even if we knew it was coming. Essentially knowing about a meteor for too long will cause society to cease to be since huge masses of people will figure "what the hell" and run hog wild in roits and looting.
actually several solutions to stop the meteor heading towards earth in 25 years exist already, many of them very low tech.
1- fly a small probe out, land it on the meteor, drill down, and use its thrusters to move it slightly to the side. downside is that landing on a meteor is tricky and it will require a great deal of minor adjusting to stay in the right direction.
2- fly a small probe out, land on meteor, drill down, place a bomb inside ala 'armageddon'. by far the stupidest solution, seeing as how drilling and landing are still an issue and now youve got a swarm of meteors, your much better to go with #3
3- fly small probe out, dont even try to land the damned thing, set off a nuke a short distance away and the force of the explosion will nudge the meteor in the right direction. its cheap, easy, and simple, the only problem is that we have a treaty saying we cannot detonate nukes in space, but i think an exception may be made.
4- okay, i dunno WHO thought of this one. fly a REALLY BIG probe out near the meteor, do not land, instead hover near it hoping the infantesimal mass of the probe will have enough gravity to tug the meteor ever so slightly. in order to clear the one mile window of doom this will have to be kept up for like ten years. obvious problems are it sounds good on paper but i highly doubt they can use minute gravity ammounts like that, also the ammount of piloting required to follow a meteor for ten years is just ludicrous
5- fly small probe out, use weak laser to gently push the meteor to the side like a solar sail. much faster and less silly then #4. but once again this requires a lot of long term piloting and adds the problem of AIM. also if the laser can push the meteor it will push the probe too.
on another note there was recently a polio outbreak in Africa. why? i thought we had a pretty darned good vaccine and gave it to everyone. well it turns out the muslum clerics have been telling people that the vaccines given by American health officials, missionaries, and the WHO are actually concentrated doses of the HIV virus, and have only recently backed down once a great amount of their congregation has lost the ability to walk or breathe.
QuoteApply directly to the forehead with liberal force
I'll add that Methane is ten times as effective Greenhouse gas as CO2 And there is thousand tons of frozen of Methane in the oceans.===>
These gas hydrates are actually natural methane-water ices, which form under conditions of high pressure and low temperature in many areas worldwide. Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a cage of water molecules. It looks very much like water ice. Methane hydrate is stable in ocean floor sediments at water depths greater than 300 meters and, where it occurs, it is known to cement loose sediments in a surface layer up to several hundred meters thick.
There is estimated to be just one humongous lot of this methane hydrate just under the seafloor along the continental shelves and since methane is just the greenhouse gas par excellence, we better hope that the oceans don't warm up enough to turn the solid hydrate to gas.
PBH
obviously the world will sometime before 250,000 years from now when the sun expands and our mutant ofspring will be forced to live on one of the moons of jupiter.
The sun is only about halfway through its main sequence. It still has another 5 billion years with us.
I think that sometimes earth might go through a stage of life recycling...basicly, life begins, takes millenia to live through, dies completely, then cycle starts all over again...I like to call this a "Reformat".
hmmm, I didn't know you were Mayan....
Anyway, the Mayan system of cycles is based primarily on the idea that the planets are moving in a circular motion. This isn't true as the entire system is moving constantly through space therefore the individual planets are each moving in a three-dimensional spiral as opposed to a two dimensional circle.
Time is a line(in that it never exactly repeats), not a circle.
Time is unidirectional.
Considering that time is nothing but an ordered series of cause and effect events, yes, it can only get longer.
Time? Time is an illusion. Lunch time, doubly so.
But I want to Beliiieeeve!
Quote from: HaZ×MaT on March 06, 2007, 02:04:54 AM
Time? Time is an illusion. Lunch time, doubly so.
Is it an illusion... of gaia?
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? ;)
Quote from: Alondro on March 06, 2007, 09:24:31 AMRed 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.
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on March 06, 2007, 03:43:14 AMIs 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.
You know, I especially find the "F*CK!" horror scenario on this (http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm) 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.
Quote from: Valynth on March 06, 2007, 01:49:23 AM
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
Question, if the polar shift could cause a gravitational shift...what effects could it have on the moon?
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.
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on March 06, 2007, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 06, 2007, 06:39:30 AM
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on March 06, 2007, 03:43:14 AM
Quote from: HaZ×MaT on March 06, 2007, 02:04:54 AM
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
Quote from: KarlOmega1 on March 06, 2007, 02:39:31 PM
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 :mowdizzy 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.
Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on March 06, 2007, 03:49:27 PMMy reference is more obscure and convoluted than yours.
Wait. Your reference wasn't to Lovelock after all? Boo! This thread is useless without Lovelock!
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?
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on March 16, 2007, 03:21:01 PMwait, 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.
Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on March 16, 2007, 03:21:01 PM
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.
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
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.
You forgot IceNine. In that case, we're screwed. :<
Quote from: BillBuckner on March 17, 2007, 11:07:16 AM
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
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.
"high tech" :giggle
Quote from: Boogeyman on March 17, 2007, 02:18:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Dilbert"So you are going to destroy the civilisation as we know it?"
"I honestly won't miss it."
Quote from: ITOS on March 17, 2007, 02:38:22 PM
"high tech" :giggle
Quote from: Boogeyman on March 17, 2007, 02:18:02 PM
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.
Quote from: KarlOmega1 on March 17, 2007, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: ITOS on March 17, 2007, 02:38:22 PM
"high tech" :giggle
Quote from: Boogeyman on March 17, 2007, 02:18:02 PM
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.
Quote from: KarlOmega1 on March 17, 2007, 02:52:11 PM
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.
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! (http://www.brianbress.com/index.html)
There will be a library left... but only one guy to read all the books... and he's gonna break his glasses... >:3 *obvious reference for sci-fi geeks!*
Quote from: Valynth on March 17, 2007, 03:24:34 PM
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.
Yea, Hitler-type would burn the books and write his own version of history... The other problem is Tech manuals now a days are going more and more paperless or to a CD or Hard drive format, which need a working computer to retrieve the data. Books rot and Hard drive can be destroy if not protected. One hopes, that high tech can snap back quickly from small isolated pockets of high tech, but you need an industrial base with high educated population to rebuilt our civilization. Some may not be willing to try and/or will fight against any effort to bring it back, because of the
evils it brings. A low-educated peoples are easier to rule and control. Just look at Taliban controlled Afghanistan..
PBH
yeah, its kinda hard to stay in control when slightly over half your country hears that in other places women have things like freedom of speech, can vote, and are allowed outside of their homes without male escorts and have no fear of being stoned.
this was most true of the soviet union, and i actually have a second hand account of this.
greit, i live near a city called Milwaukee- Americas armpit, one of the most segregated and dirty towns in the country, and the only reason you cant smell the cows is because of the dead and rotting alewives (its a kind of fish, one so nasty nobody wants to eat it) heaped on the lake shore.
that being said a group of Russians from the USSR came to Milwaukee during the 80s for business reasons, they thought it was some kind of magical wonderland. once they returned home to the soviet union they were told that the tricky Americans built fake cities like this for the purpose of seducing its citizens.
i repeat- the communist government told its citizens that one of the biggest cesspools in America was in fact a fake city erected as beautiful as we could, populated by actors, and designed with the intent of fooling soviets into thinking America was some kind of land of wonder. what a load of okse dritt.
I hate to think what they told people who have been to DC, San Francisco, Seattle, and some of the other nicer big cities
after the fall of the Berlin wall and all that this group of about a half dozen Russians fled the country and moved to Milwaukee... they now agree that compared to most of America its an armpit, but also admit they've never been to the deep south or the north woods so they cannot make an accurate comparison.
QuoteJoseph Stalin -
- The people who cast the votes do not decide an election, the people who count the votes do.