A General Question Concerning Dooms-Day Science

[amicus]

I have not kept count of the number of times I have heard the narrator of a science program state: “It has happened before…(pregnant pause…), it will happen again.”

The first couple dozen times I heard that said, I suppose I accepted it as a rational statement concerning recurring geological events on Earth.

But, from out of the blue, or perhaps an accumulation of data, my question began to percolate.

Is the statement, that if it happened once it WILL happen again, a true statement?

Let me propose that we consider Asteroids, Comets and Meteors to begin with as there have been a few films, “Deep Impact”, “Armageddon” and even an old Sean Connery/Natalie Wood, “Meteor”, that address the subject, I am certain there are many more, feel free to add if you wish.

Odd bits of left over solar system building material exist in the Asteroid Belt, between Mars and Jupiter, in the Kuiper Belt and in the Oort Cloud, both outside the boundaries of the Solar System proper.

The Asteroid Belt is said to be fairly stable, held in place by the gravitational fields of Mars and Jupiter.

Comets are said to originate beyond the solar system and some are on a periodic schedule in orbit around the sun. The most famous:

“…Halley's Comet's last appearance was in 1986, and its average period of revolution around the Sun is 76 years. But it turns out that the gravitational pull of the giant planets creates variations in that period of up to a few years (so the time between successive appearances isn't always exactly 76 years). Its next appearance should be in 2061…”

Impact craters on the Moon have been found to be between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years old. They remain visible today because there is no erosion or tectonic movement to erase them. It is said that Earth would display a similar pockmarked appearance were it not for weather and geological events that virtually erased them from the surface of the Earth.

Scientists still debate over the cause of the demise of the Dinosaurs, some stating an Asteroid impact some 65 million years ago was responsible, others say that climate change had already caused their extinction.

The Tungusta event in Siberia in 1908 is the most recent major asteroid event that science has recorded.

Long winded I know, but if I do not provide sufficient background, others will do so and fault my presentation.

The Sun, the Earth and the Solar system are about half way through their predicted lifetimes. The Sun is expected to continue for about another 5 billion years functioning essentially as it does today…give or take certain parameters.

Most of the left over material in the solar system was blown away by Solar winds when the Sun was young and vigorous. The rest has been swept up by the various planets and moons, as indicated by impact cratering.

Science does not know and cannot predict how many possible Earth crossing Comets exist outside the Solar System. One film portrayed a Comet impacting a large asteroid in the Asteroid Belt, dislodging it into an Earth impact orbit.

Other than long term Comets orbiting the Sun, science does not know what did or might cause objects in either the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud to leave their orbits and enter the Solar System.

Add to all that, the Sun is zipping along in orbit around our Galaxy, the Milky Way, and takes about 240 million years to complete one circuit.

Science does not know what might occupy the Space ahead of Sol and its’ children and the whole Heliosphere as we plunge ahead into the future.

Taking note that the Sun, the Earth and the Solar system are in what one might call, Middle Age, one can conclude that the frivolities of youth are in the past and what happened once, may not, in fact, happen again.

In a nutshell; any further large asteroid events are unlikely?

Apply the same thought process to other such dooms-day predictions such as Super Volcano’s, namely Yellowstone, which has been predicted to erupt again since it has, repeatedly in the past, about every 640,000 years…and it is over-due.

The Earth is gradually cooling and Earth’s rotation is gradually slowing, both of which should indicate a lesser amount of volcanic activity of a major, extinction level size. (Just now Iceland erupted, go figure)

But wait! There’s more! (TV ads) Earth’s magnetic field reverses polarity! Has happened many times in the past, scientists say, and WILL happen again. The SAA (South American Anomaly) might even be a precursor to a field reversal.

Another Ice Age? When? Forget Global Warming; that is on the way regardless, as the Climate of Earth is in constant change, although science does not know precisely why.

Plate Tectonic movement, subduction earthquakes of monumental size and Tsunami’s as a result? Recent events remind us that such things are still happening.

But as Earth ages and cools and the magma beneath the surface is not so frisky, will not these things too, subside?

As I put in the Thread title, ‘Question’, make it plural, I guess, and before you yell at me, at least browse the links provided.

http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/kuiper_belt.htm

http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/oort_cloud.htm

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/rec/rec27/earthcore.html

http://nov55.com/heat.html

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html

http://www.solstation.com/stars/asteroid.htm

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_surface.html

http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/39/sun2.html

http://novan.com/earth.htm

Amicus the Curious…

 

[oggbashan]

Several answers to a General Question

1. Don't believe Hollywood.

2. Life on this planet is far more fragile than most believe. There is a whole range of events that could eliminate humanity or even all life. They range from asteroid impact to volcanic eruptions including a flu virus. Our own stupidity such as starting a nuclear or biological war could also cause disaster.

3. The timescales of disasters that could wipe out humanity range from a few weeks for an asteroid impact to millions of years for gradual climate change.

4. The probability of a catastropic disaster is low but is possible. Your chance of winning millions of dollars on a lottery is probably greater than the probability of most catastrophic disasters but their probability is NOT zero.

Hope that helps but the most important answer is 1.

Og

 

[amicus]

Thank you Ogg, I was beginning to wonder if anyone had a comment.

There is a television program, "The Science of Hollywood", which judges the accuracty of film science and most are found lacking although some do stay close to the scientific 'possible', and remain within the laws of physics. "The Day After Tomorrow" was judged to be way off the possible.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your Post, but I sense I am a bit more optimistic about the survival of humanity than you.

In geological 'deep time', humans have not been around very long and one must respect evolution from the sense that it continues to function as it always has. Anne McCaffrey address this, in a way, with her,"The Rowan" series that perceived a 'mental' evolution wherein the newly evolved humans had mental powers far beyond the ordinary.

I would still like a comment concerning a 'middle aged earth', that is of my own creation as I have not read or heard anything along the lines I am thinking.

And true, humans are fragile, a magnetic reversal, the loss of the magnetosphere and the sun would cook the entire earth in a matter of days.

Looking forward far beyond our personal lifetimes, I wonder if some dampening procedures might be employed to delay or direct the next ice age; dusting the glaciers with carbon to absorb heat, creating an artificial 'green house effect', to modify climate and so forth.

As I understand the physics of volcano's, it appears, to my layman's mind, that relieving pressure in magma chambers might prevent an eruption. I do know that Icelanders have previously redirected lava flows and saved some areas from destruction.

Thank you again, I appreciate your thoughts.

regards...

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

2. Life on this planet is far more fragile than most believe. There is a whole range of events that could eliminate humanity or even all life. They range from asteroid impact to volcanic eruptions including a flu virus. Our own stupidity such as starting a nuclear or biological war could also cause disaster.

4. The probability of a catastropic disaster is low but is possible. Your chance of winning millions of dollars on a lottery is probably greater than the probability of most catastrophic disasters but their probability is NOT zero.



Og

I would argue the opposite Og, the past billion years or so prove that life on earth even in the most hostile conditions is remarkably tenacious. Human life on the other hand has only been here a fraction of a geological second and may well be fragile, but in the cosmic scheme are we of any importance? - probably not.

It is in fact absolutely mathematically certain that a catclysmic event will finish the earth, maybe when the sun becomes a red giant. Timescale is the issue.

I guess my basic point is that what we regard as a disaster is a human judgement based in conceptions of our own importance which don't mean anything on the universal stage.

 

[oggbashan]

I would argue the opposite Og, the past billion years or so prove that life on earth even in the most hostile conditions is remarkably tenacious. ...

I don't think you are "the opposite". The probabilities are so low and/or the timescales so long that we would be justified in betting that we, and/or life will survive for a few tens of thousands of years.

Og

 

[amicus]

"In the cosmic scheme"...."our own importance..."

Hello Ishtat, interesting...

With a nod towards the late Carl Sagan, and the consensus opinion that millions if not billions of life forms exist in the Universe, I take it upon myself, if for no other reason than to be cantankerous, I beg to differ.

Your thesis that man is inconsequential and of little import in the flow of nature and evolution, surely has good reason behind it, and I grant you that.

Perhaps my youthful exuberance upon discovering Science Fiction is at fault, but I, as they, saw humanity populating the Galaxy and moving on from there.

I like the long term concept of Terraforming, and the concept of man evolving in space, adapting to discovered environments and continuing the species even to the extend of a ten thousand year suspended animation journey to another solar system.

It is, as yet, an open questions as to whether any other sentient life forms have evolved out there somewhere and if man, indeed, is the only one, then that, of and by itself, places an unique aura around our species.

Our lifespan has doubled in years since the American Revolution; education continues to bring more and more agile minds into the fray to sustain our existence.

The nature of our evolution as predator, belligerent, possessive, territorial and aggressive, tells me that we can and might just head out to the Stars armed to the teeth intending to survive under any circumstances.

I remain optimistic that mankind will overcome and survive whatever nature throws our way and that we will not exterminate ourselves with a nuclear holocaust.

When I personally look back at the technological advances made during the 20th Century, I cannot begin to predict what the next century will bring.

My vision ignores the welfare state mentality that desires only to exist in comfort in a risk free environment; I see those as the dregs of society that are always with us and offer nothing to the advance of man, science and technology.

I, even at my advanced age and a million more like me, would board a mission to Mars tomorrow, knowing it was a one way trip with survival a fractional possibility.

There is, in my opinion, an indominitable hubris to humanity which will not permit us to go extinct or withdraw from an open attempt to conquer nature.

For what it is worth...



ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If there's a miniscule probability something will happen, there's a miniscule probability something wont happen. And there's the present enormous probability Obama will fuck thing up beyond fixing, though we lose little sleep over his threat.

 

[Weird Harold]

...Impact craters on the Moon have been found to be between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years old. They remain visible today because there is no erosion or tectonic movement to erase them. It is said that Earth would display a similar pockmarked appearance were it not for weather and geological events that virtually erased them from the surface of the Earth.

Scientists still debate over the cause of the demise of the Dinosaurs, some stating an Asteroid impact some 65 million years ago was responsible, others say that climate change had already caused their extinction.
...

Up until about fifty years ago, he genral consensus was very similar to your "middle aged earth" argument; specifically, that the Earth was long past any danger from meteor impacts. The argument was that the atmosphere hadn't existed when the planet accreted and once the atmosphere stabilized it burned up any further collisions. Only small cinders would ever survive long enough to impact the planet.

Then in the sixties, Gene Schumaker proved that Arizona's Meteor Crater was an impact crater and learned to recognise the 'fossil' craters around the world -- like chixilub(sp). "Science" began to pull its head out of the sand and reevaluate thing like Tunguska. Other disciplines like vulcanology followed suit and abandoned their "well that's over with" approach to "dormant" volcanoes like Yellowstone or Mt Mazama (in the US.)

"It Will Happen Again" is Hollywood hyperbole, but it is closer to the truth than "and that's what happened and now it's over and we don't have to worry about it anymore."

The odds of a global "dino-killer" catastrophe from an asteroid or supervolcano are such that I probably won't live to see it happen, but that doesn't mean I should stick my head in the sand and refuse to consider the possibility.

In short, your "middle-aged earth" idea is old science that ignores new and better understandings of cyclical processes and processes that continue even though mankind hasn't been around long enough to observe first-hand the last example.

Earth is less likely to see some disasters than in primordial times, but that's not the same as being completely risk free.

 

[LaRocha]

Human beings give value to the universe, we are the only thing of value in the universe.

 

[TxRad]

Well, lets see. A few years ago, Jupiter was hit by a group of asteroids.

Check out Near Earth Objects if you want to find out just how junk free space in this solar system isn't.

Volcano's and earthquakes, where to start. There is a lot known but even more that is just theory. Hot spots in the core are known about but the why and how are only theory. That they contribute to eruptions and earthquakes is known. That they contribute to weather and climate is also know. Other than that, it's all theory.

The Earth is a ball of molten iron (basically) with a crust for us to live on. The plates slide across that molten iron which is spinning. The difference in the crust spin and the core spin are minute but then again, what is minute on a global/Continental scale.

Line up a hot spot with a fault or volcanic tube and boom as in the case of Iceland. A plate shifts one against another, the ground shakes, and things go boom. Western California is going south while the rest of the country is going north. Mexico will get it back in ten thousand years or so. Hawaii is headed for Japan. Someone needs to warn them to learn Japanese over the next ten thousand years or so.

Dooms Day? Pick a day, any day. We don't control nature or this planet. It controls us. It does what it wants,when it wants, how it wants, and there is not a damned thing we can do about it. We're along for the ride and will be until our luck runs out like the dinosaurs.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm sure Iceland will be comforted with the knowledge that doomsday is a long way off. Even though there have been no reported deaths on that island nation it has disrupted our global way of life in the short term.

In the long term, well that is not really known. Will it cause a localized nuclear winter? Will it contribute to the warming trend of the globe? Or will it cause a cooling effect on the globe?

And Kilauea still erupts, spewing molten rock down it sides to create new land mass every hour of every day.

So I don't think that Armageddon is that far off. And no, I'm not a 2012 crazy. Although there might be something that happens then, I truly do not believe the world will end.

 

[amicus]

Old Science? Hardly...most of what we have learned about the earth, the solar system and the Universe has occured in the pat thirty years...but if it pleases you...?

Yes, Shumaker/Levy, was a wake-up call, but it was a single chunk of whatever before gravity broke it apart into about twenty pieces.

I suppose the greater part of all of society lives in blissful ignorance concerning the possibility of catastrophic natural events. In the ancient annals of most societies, their faith and belief, they all recorded earthquakes, tidal waves, and the history of Comets is especially interesting as scientists attempt to identify the Star of David as either a comet or a super nova.

I am tempted to write that it really doesn't matter, one way or the other, as what will be, will be; but that is not what I think in terms of man's ability to cope with virtually anything that might come our way.

Asteroids can be diverted and studies are underway of just how to accomplish that. Even a magnetic reversal, as I understand it may be a gradual process, would give mankind time to erect a shield of sorts to insulate against the solar radiation that the magnetosphere currently blocks.

Even if Yellowstone or another super volcano goes off, I can picture methods to cleanse the atmosphere of dust and ash, preventing a nuclear winter, hell, a sufficient number of high altitude weather balloons with a fine mesh between two or more, could reduce and perhaps eliminate the threat.

Long before the sun begins to die, say three billion years from now, man will have discovered how to travel throughout the galaxy and beyond and will have migrated to greener pastures.

The evidence, or actually, the total lack of evidence of other intelligent life in the Universe does, as a poster said, confer upon Man, the only value in the Universe, whether you like it or not.

As with the Neanderthal's extinction, I foresee an extinction process at work in the mental capacity of those who see human life as unimportant and without value..y'all will just go extinct and the vital spirit of man will continue to thrive.

Amicus Veritas

 

[squarejohn]

I have not kept count of the number of times I have heard the narrator of a science program state: “It has happened before…(pregnant pause…), it will happen again.”

The first couple dozen times I heard that said, I suppose I accepted it as a rational statement concerning recurring geological events on Earth.

But, from out of the blue, or perhaps an accumulation of data, my question began to percolate.

Is the statement, that if it happened once it WILL happen again, a true statement?

The only thing that is true is that no one can predict the future.

 

[amicus]

The only thing that is true is that no one can predict the future.

~~~

Hello and welcome..I wonder if your statement is comforting or discomforting?

Incidentally, you are wrong, if only to a degree, we can predict the path of Hurricanes and Typhoons, we have learned to detect and understand harmonic tremors that precede volcanic eruptions and, believe it or not, science has predicted a close earth rendezvous with an asteroid somewhere in the year 2851.

Through studies of the Sun, scientists can predict when a mass ejection will reach the Earth several days before it arrives.

Agricultural interests in Australia and New Zealand use weather forecast and ocean current predictions to determine the time and crop best suited for wet, dry or moderate growth years.

Thus, the future can be predicted and dealth with.

Amicus Veritas

 

[LaRocha]

Why's it matter if people are around in a million or a billion years?

People can only think about so many generations, and plan accordingly to protect them. Many people will see their great-grandchildren born, they will live into the 22nd century if you're young enough. I guess you can imagine their children and think about them living into the middle of the 22nd century, but after that it gets real silly to think about. Who's worrying about five hundred years from now? Forget about a billion.

 

[amicus]

Just last night I watch a NatGeo thing about the oldest city ever discovered somewhere in Turkey; eight or nine thousand years ago BCE as the lady scientist said.

The Shroud of Turin, if memory serves, holds antiquarian value as do the Archives of Vatican City, if the latest Tom Hanks flick implies.

They dug up the bones of a little bitty humanoid called "Lucy", and of recent, a more aged antique than her, perhaps the missing evolutionary link between ape and man.

Only sentient humans have an interest in the past and their geneology; we seem to enjoy learning of our progenitors and from whence they came.

I don't doubt that future generations, thousands of years removed into the future, will feel the same way and study our time period with great interest.

Then too, there is the inherited gene concept that quality often breeds quality, which is why it is beneficial to known one's parents and family line.

Not to mention that a Classical Education includes familiarity with Thales and Pythagoras, the Greeks and the Romans, the Phoenicians and the Chinese. And would you believe some professions spend a lifetime digging up bones and fossils of critters dead millions of years?

Rethink your premise...



Amicus

 

[LaRocha]

Just last night I watch a NatGeo thing about the oldest city ever discovered somewhere in Turkey; eight or nine thousand years ago BCE as the lady scientist said.

The Shroud of Turin, if memory serves, holds antiquarian value as do the Archives of Vatican City, if the latest Tom Hanks flick implies.

They dug up the bones of a little bitty humanoid called "Lucy", and of recent, a more aged antique than her, perhaps the missing evolutionary link between ape and man.

Only sentient humans have an interest in the past and their geneology; we seem to enjoy learning of our progenitors and from whence they came.

I don't doubt that future generations, thousands of years removed into the future, will feel the same way and study our time period with great interest.

Then too, there is the inherited gene concept that quality often breeds quality, which is why it is beneficial to known one's parents and family line.

Not to mention that a Classical Education includes familiarity with Thales and Pythagoras, the Greeks and the Romans, the Phoenicians and the Chinese. And would you believe some professions spend a lifetime digging up bones and fossils of critters dead millions of years?

Rethink your premise...



Amicus

Actually, you didn't quite get my premise, but we'll go with yours.

Which human societies had a concept of history? Why do you assume every sentient human and complex society viewed the past, present, and future the same as you?

Most societies in human history, including the ones capable of recording that history in writing or glyphs, apparently only had a vague non-linear, mythological conception of past human existence.

Archaeology itself was born out of treasure hunting, not out of an interest in a past group of people. The Mabinogion is the concept of history for a large area of the British Island for hundreds of years. The Iliad is history even while Herodotus is creating historicity.

There's a reason the Sphinx was buried by sand for ages. The Mormons aren't two hundred years old and their genealogy is unparalleled. Most people can't find their ancestors three or four generations back. This current fetish for historicity and genealogy wasn't common even a hundred year ago. You place a value on history and genealogy because you believe it gives you some sort of competitive advantage. That's likely a new myth.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Why's it matter if people are around in a million or a billion years?

People can only think about so many generations, and plan accordingly to protect them. Many people will see their great-grandchildren born, they will live into the 22nd century if you're young enough. I guess you can imagine their children and think about them living into the middle of the 22nd century, but after that it gets real silly to think about. Who's worrying about five hundred years from now? Forget about a billion.

I did my genealogy 15 years ago. It cost me around $35,000 to do (on my own) but it was a revelation. I can reliably trace some lines back to Philip of Macedonia. (via one of his bastard children)

But what amazes me is how similar all of us are from antiquity till now: Confrontational, excitable, and never reticent; Reverend Samuel Johnson got 330 lashes for suggesting to JAMES I (to his face) that he kiss his ass, plus he incited JAMES troops to mutiny. We dont care; I'd shake my crotch and invite Obama to 'stimulate this, mutha fucka.'

 

[LaRocha]

I did my genealogy 15 years ago. It cost me around $35,000 to do (on my own) but it was a revelation. I can reliably trace some lines back to Philip of Macedonia. (via one of his bastard children)

But what amazes me is how similar all of us are from antiquity till now: Confrontational, excitable, and never reticent; Reverend Samuel Johnson got 330 lashes for suggesting to JAMES I (to his face) that he kiss his ass, plus he incited JAMES troops to mutiny. We dont care; I'd shake my crotch and invite Obama to 'stimulate this, mutha fucka.'

My father spends all this time on his web book trying to look up his rinky dink ancestors. I think it's $100 a month to use some of these sites. If you know how to do a little research there are people who'll pay you good money to find out about their rinky dink ancestors. I've no interest in finding out trivial information about dead people who share DNA with me four or five generations back.

My grandma and all these old aunts and uncles are still alive and they don't even have that much information about their own grandparents. I'll ask them for details but they don't know, they didn't ask the same kinds of questions of their parents and grandparents that people my age do now. People died and then you stopped talking about them. Genealogy was for Lords and Capitalists. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to know if they had an ancestor that almost, might have served in WWI or the Civil War.

 

[oggbashan]

One of my cousins did my paternal genealogy in the late 1960s.

At the time several maiden aunts were still alive who had been born in the 1870s and 1880s. With information from them and privileged access to the City of London's archives he was able to trace the family back to the 14th Century.

[Edited for TMI]

Og

 

[squarejohn]

~~~

Hello and welcome..I wonder if your statement is comforting or discomforting?

Incidentally, you are wrong, if only to a degree, we can predict the path of Hurricanes and Typhoons, we have learned to detect and understand harmonic tremors that precede volcanic eruptions and, believe it or not, science has predicted a close earth rendezvous with an asteroid somewhere in the year 2851.

Through studies of the Sun, scientists can predict when a mass ejection will reach the Earth several days before it arrives.

Agricultural interests in Australia and New Zealand use weather forecast and ocean current predictions to determine the time and crop best suited for wet, dry or moderate growth years.

Thus, the future can be predicted and dealth with.

Amicus Veritas

What you say is true about predicting events to which a periodicity has been observed; but there are cycles within cycles within cycles, ad infinitum, each cycle affecting all, and all cycles affecting each; so making exact predictions about what will occur when, is still the Golden Fleece which is searched for in science.

I took up the study of cycles about twenty years ago, as a sort of hobby, because, to me at least, cycles are fascinating. I am, by no measure, an expert in this field, but I learned a few things.

Virtually anything we can think of, is governed by cycles. The exactitude with which an event can be predicted depends on the amount of available data.

To give a homely example, the rising and setting of the sun can be predicted. There is enough data on the rising and setting of the sun to have allowed the formulation of an equation than can predict these two events as far into the future as anyone would care to go, to within a very small fraction of a second. The same thing can be said of lunar cycles.

Even accidents, the number of them at any given time, can be predicted with enough accuracy for insurance companies to set their rates at a level that will virtually guarantee a profit.

What cannot be predicted, is which individual will suffer an accident, and when. We take comfort in this by thinking the accident will happen to someone else. Everyone knows that everyone dies; no one knows when. There is a vast region of things that are unknowable, but this is a field for mystics to plow.

There is a season for all things, as it says in the Bible; so yes, some parts of the future can be predicted with a practical degree of accuracy, and in that you are correct; other parts cannot even be imagined, and in that, I am correct (No one saw this coming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmL-uSo3gyw&feature=youtube_gdata). Therefore we are both right, as far as we know.

Thank you for welcoming me aboard. I am fairly new to this site and have published six stories here, so far.

Try this link for more info on cycles. http://www.cycles.cc/

squarejohn

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think youre an idiot-savant like Rainman. RAINMAN is your new name here.

 

[SeaCat]

Old Science? Hardly...most of what we have learned about the earth, the solar system and the Universe has occured in the pat thirty years...but if it pleases you...?

Yes, Shumaker/Levy, was a wake-up call, but it was a single chunk of whatever before gravity broke it apart into about twenty pieces.

I suppose the greater part of all of society lives in blissful ignorance concerning the possibility of catastrophic natural events. In the ancient annals of most societies, their faith and belief, they all recorded earthquakes, tidal waves, and the history of Comets is especially interesting as scientists attempt to identify the Star of David as either a comet or a super nova.

I am tempted to write that it really doesn't matter, one way or the other, as what will be, will be; but that is not what I think in terms of man's ability to cope with virtually anything that might come our way.

Asteroids can be diverted and studies are underway of just how to accomplish that. Even a magnetic reversal, as I understand it may be a gradual process, would give mankind time to erect a shield of sorts to insulate against the solar radiation that the magnetosphere currently blocks.

Even if Yellowstone or another super volcano goes off, I can picture methods to cleanse the atmosphere of dust and ash, preventing a nuclear winter, hell, a sufficient number of high altitude weather balloons with a fine mesh between two or more, could reduce and perhaps eliminate the threat.

Long before the sun begins to die, say three billion years from now, man will have discovered how to travel throughout the galaxy and beyond and will have migrated to greener pastures.

The evidence, or actually, the total lack of evidence of other intelligent life in the Universe does, as a poster said, confer upon Man, the only value in the Universe, whether you like it or not.

As with the Neanderthal's extinction, I foresee an extinction process at work in the mental capacity of those who see human life as unimportant and without value..y'all will just go extinct and the vital spirit of man will continue to thrive.

Amicus Veritas

Ami,

Some interesting ideas here. I'm not sure how viable they are but interesting none the less.

Diverting Asteroids.

Yes there are studies ongoing in this area. So far as I know none of them have much chance of success yet. The ideas I have heard about are:

The use of Nuclear Weapons to destroy or divert. So far studies are inconclusive on the ability of this happening because of accuracy and blast patterns. As an example, the amount of energy needed to divert an asteroid from it's course once it is inside our gravitation well, even enough to just have it skip off our atmosphere is incredible. More than one or even a couple of nuclear warheads is capable of producing. (Remember much of their force is going to be directed away from the asteroid, there is no such thing as a shaped Nuclear Warhead.) The same is true for the destruction of the same asteroid. Also our delivery systems are just not that accurate where they could be used for this type of scenario. (Especially when you consider the ranges we would be talking about.)

There is also talk of creating and useing a large ground or space based Laser to push the asteroid away from it's path. Again we are talking incredible amounts of energy needed, plus the fact there are no lasers of this size in existence.

I have read several scenarious about a near miss or skip hit of a large asteroid. (A skip hit is when the asteroid skips off the atmosphere rather than penetrating it.) Even in these the scenarios vary widely in what would happen. They range from one hell of a light show over a short period of time, (one study I read a while back suggested that this light show would be bright enough to at least temporarily blind anyone looking at it, but I somehow doubt that.) to a sonic blast from the impact that could cause incredible damage. No one seems to know what would happen.

As for what would happen if a large asteroid penetrated our atmosphere there are again many schools of thought on the results. Mainly they depend on what the asteroid (or Meteor as it would then be called,) was made of. Even then there are disagreements. The only consensus is that it wouldn't be good, we would get our bell rung but good.

AS for you idea of cleaning the upper atmosphere of particulates after a major volcanic eruption. I like the idea, it's novel but I just don't see it working. About the only way for particulates to be brought out of air circulation in the amounts needed would be for them to drop to low enough altitudes where water would condense on them and form rain. (Which is how it works now.)

Because this is a subject that interests me I try to keep up with the research on it. (Natural Disasters.) Some of the ideas I have heard in the past are worthy of being written into Sci-Fi stories and some were incredibly stupid. (My favorite was to have multiple large booster type rockets with grappling arms at the Legrange Points. Then if an asteroid was detected that was thought to be a threat those that could intercept it would be launched at it. When interception was made they would nose into it on the side and push it away from the Earth.)

Cat

 

[amicus]

Actually, you didn't quite get my premise, but we'll go with yours.

Which human societies had a concept of history? Why do you assume every sentient human and complex society viewed the past, present, and future the same as you?

Most societies in human history, including the ones capable of recording that history in writing or glyphs, apparently only had a vague non-linear, mythological conception of past human existence.

Archaeology itself was born out of treasure hunting, not out of an interest in a past group of people. The Mabinogion is the concept of history for a large area of the British Island for hundreds of years. The Iliad is history even while Herodotus is creating historicity.

There's a reason the Sphinx was buried by sand for ages. The Mormons aren't two hundred years old and their genealogy is unparalleled. Most people can't find their ancestors three or four generations back. This current fetish for historicity and genealogy wasn't common even a hundred year ago. You place a value on history and genealogy because you believe it gives you some sort of competitive advantage. That's likely a new myth.

~~~

Not quite the direction I thought the Thread would take, which speaks to my predictive powers I suppose, but it has turned an interesting corner that is educational and adversarial and perhaps even, with a stretch, entertaining.

Which human societies had a concept of history? Why do you assume every sentient human and complex society viewed the past, present, and future the same as you?

After mentioning, a long time ago, that Native Americans had no written language, I was heaped upon by Cloudy and friends who suggested that an 'Oral History', of not just the Native Americans, but many primitive societies, served as both a history and a continuance of custom, law and even moral and ethical principles.

Thus, it is not an assumption of mine; rather an area of knowledge that is congruent with the concept that historical data concerning human life and societies is an essential and critical ingredient in sentience and societal continuance.

Archaeology itself was born out of treasure hunting, not out of an interest in a past group of people.

I am but a student of archaeology and perhaps I have acquired a romanctic view of the discipline through complimentary films and books, but I suggest you have watched too many Harrison Ford movies. I don't recall the program, a nerd channel special, but it seems a woman, the wife of a physician or biologist, as I recall, discovered a bone or a tooth somewhere in England, showed it to her husband and thus began the history of the 'Terrible Lizard', aka Dinosaurs.

"Angels and Ants" is another film concerning the Darwinian pursuit of knowledge directed at understanding the many varieties of animals and insects and how they were related to one another.

Most societies in human history, including the ones capable of recording that history in writing or glyphs, apparently only had a vague non-linear, mythological conception of past human existence.

It is, to me, completely understandable as to why early humans relied on myth and eventually faith and religion to explain the hostile and unknown environment they were born into. Even then, the dispersal of intelligence quotients followed a Bell Curve and each society responded differently to those, 'wise men' of the tribe or community and their vision or perceptions as to why the world was as it was.

Everything we are today is a result of all that has gone before and as the future unfolds, it too, will reflect the past.

This current fetish for historicity and genealogy wasn't common even a hundred year ago. You place a value on history and genealogy because you believe it gives you some sort of competitive advantage. That's likely a new myth

I think you are totally wrong here and that an intense desire to know one's history and genealogy is an integral part of being human and has been with us forever. The rules and laws of many societies of marriage only within a faith or a sect or an ethnic group, is commonplace throughout history and is the foundation upon which modern inquiries are based.

I am not quite certain, although I have a suspicion, of why you are presenting an argument that is counterproductive to all we have learned about humanity. Perhaps you will address your motivation?

Amicus Veritas

 

[amicus]

SeaCat...Interesting Post and thank you....

From what you write, it appears we share a mutual interest...

To limit this to Asteroids; there is an effort underway, prompted to greater levels by the Shumaker/Levy Jupiter event, to detect and map all objects of extinction level size within the scope of our ability to detect them.

As with the object ue to arrive in the 28th Century, given sufficient time, any one of several methods of gradually changing the course of such an object have been theoretically shown to be viable.

As you know it is not just the eyeball through the telescope anymore, but computer programs that automatically track every moving object within range of the equipment and notify the Astronomer when an object within certain parameters is discovered.

Lagrange points are locations in space where gravitational forces and the orbital motion of a body balance each other.

They were discovered by French mathematician Louis Lagrange in 1772 in his gravitational studies of the ‘Three body problem’: how a third, small body would orbit around two orbiting large ones.

There are five Lagrangian points in the Sun-Earth system and such points also exist in the Earth-Moon system.

I think I watched a program about satellites using LaGrange Points to locate solar observations to study the sun and also sunspots and mass coronal ejections that might affect the Earth.

My non scientific background can easily be brought into question concerning high altitude weather balloons with a filtering net between two or more; it may be totally unworkable. The point I wanted to make was that the mind of man and our every widening technology, may indeed be able to reduce the effects of a Krakatoa like eruption that changed global weather patterns for years.

In other words, we are not completely at the mercy of nature and may be able to modify it to save the species.

There is a water program in Peru, I think, that involves drilling through a rather large mountain range to bring water to an arid location that will eventually feed millions of people with agricultural products.

A hundred years ago, excepting perhaps the Panama Canal, neither the ideas or the technology existed to envision such a project. Even the Chunnel, taxes the imagination of many as England was connected underwater to the European continent.

The Chinese are currently working on procedures to tame the infamous Yellow River that has taken millions of lives during flood stages.

In short, I am optimistic that man will overcome whatever nature throws at us, well, within certain parameters....

Thanks again....

Amicus