How/When Do You Think the World Will End? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-2010, 12:33 PM   #21 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
I'm no astrophycicist - not even sure I spelled that right - but I once read that as stars reach the end of their lifecycles and become black holes, they swallow all else matter in the universe, which is sort of predictable.
Our star isn't massive enough to become a black hole. It will expand at the end of its life (and engulf earth), but eventually it will retract and become a white dwarf, smaller in diameter than the current sun.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 12:40 PM   #22 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Our star isn't massive enough to become a black hole. It will expand at the end of its life (and engulf earth), but eventually it will retract and become a white dwarf, smaller in diameter than the current sun.
I didn't actually mean that it's the fate of every star to become a black hole at the end of it's life, even if my post may seem to suggest that. Our star will become part of a black hole when it's mass is one day swallowed up by one.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 12:44 PM   #23 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Oh, yeah, I'm no astrophysicist either, but I don't think we know enough about black holes to say with confidence that everything will eventually converge into one superdupermassive black hole (singularity) at some point in the very distant future. I mean, if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're repeating the theory known as the Big Crunch which predicts that everything in the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 12:51 PM   #24 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Oh, yeah, I'm no astrophysicist either, but I don't think we know enough about black holes to say with confidence that everything will eventually converge into one superdupermassive black hole (singularity) at some point in the very distant future. I mean, if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're repeating the theory known as the Big Crunch which predicts that everything in the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting.
Ehr, no .. I never wrote that everything will converge in one superduper black hole

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
this article also claimed that even the super-black holes of the distant future can't contain all their mass/energy and that minute stray particles will escape it.
Note that "holes" is plural, although yes, I see .. there's an it there instead of them at the end of the sentence. Sigh
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 12:56 PM   #25 (permalink)
Registered Jimmy Rustler
 
Dr_Rez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I guess so.

Still doesn't make much sense to me though. Why not call it the end of the human race or something, instead of referring to it as something it isn't?
Point taken, but for the threads sake it sounds 10x better if the title is WORLD ENDING! Anyways if there is no more people to verify the worlds existence we may as well call it over since we would have no way of knowing.
__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*
Dr_Rez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 01:01 PM   #26 (permalink)
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
 
GuitarBizarre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I guess so.

Still doesn't make much sense to me though. Why not call it the end of the human race or something, instead of referring to it as something it isn't?
Because this thread title is snappier and encompasses at least one way of viewing the sentence you're taking issue with.

----------------
Listening to: RushEsque2 [foobar2000 v1.0.3]
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
As for me, my inbox is as of yet testicle-free, and hopefully remains that way. Don't the rest of you get any ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
I'll have you know, my ancestors were Kings of Wicklow! We're as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture!
GuitarBizarre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 02:17 PM   #27 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RezZ View Post
Point taken, but for the threads sake it sounds 10x better if the title is WORLD ENDING! Anyways if there is no more people to verify the worlds existence we may as well call it over since we would have no way of knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre View Post
Because this thread title is snappier and encompasses at least one way of viewing the sentence you're taking issue with.
Well in that case, here's what I think: we'll keep evolving until we are no longer human, at which point the world will cease to exist because there will be no more people.
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 03:15 PM   #28 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
Well in that case, here's what I think: we'll keep evolving until we are no longer human, at which point the world will cease to exist because there will be no more people.
That's a potentially interesting discussion on speciation and taxonomy

If I remember correctly, Willi Hennig, the father of modern cladistics, suggested that a species goes extinct (changes) when it has diverged into two species that are sexually isolated from eachother. At that point in time, as if that could happen in one recognizable moment, the parent species is considered gone and two new species have appeared. From some points of view, it makes a lot of sense, but alas not always and becomes horribly impractical in practice as taxonomic relationships are probed, tested, reviewed and changed over time.

Divergence of the human species is a possibility though. Perhaps we'll one day genetically design humans which are sexually isolated from us "naturals", but are still able to successfully have sexually viable offspring with eachother. Or perhaps we'll colonize a distant planet, but then a catastrophy isolates a colony for many hundreds of thousands of years so that they evolve differently from other humans.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 03:27 PM   #29 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
That's a potentially interesting discussion on speciation and taxonomy

If I remember correctly, Willi Hennig, the father of modern cladistics, suggested that a species goes extinct (changes) when it has diverged into two species that are sexually isolated from eachother. At that point in time, as if that could happen in one recognizable moment, the parent species is considered gone and two new species have appeared. From some points of view, it makes a lot of sense, but alas not always and becomes horribly impractical in practice as taxonomic relationships are probed, tested, reviewed and changed over time.

Divergence of the human species is a possibility though. Perhaps we'll one day genetically design humans which are sexually isolated from us "naturals", but are still able to successfully have sexually viable offspring with eachother. Or perhaps we'll colonize a distant planet, but then a catastrophy isolates a colony for many hundreds of thousands of years so that they evolve differently from other humans.
Have you ever heard of the book Man After Man? It's pretty much about that exact thing. It's an illustrated future history of the human race that starts with some groups of humans being genetically engineered for various reasons and then throughout the ages follows the evolution of these divergent human species. Kind of an interesting cross between science fiction and evolutionary biology and definitely worth checking out if you find that kind of speculation as fascinating as I do.

Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2010, 08:48 PM   #30 (permalink)
Partying on the inside
 
Freebase Dali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
Default

I'm bored, and will construct a theoretical scenario for the end of our world (as we know it) on this planet.

  • In the same way that old "future" movies got prediction [unfashionably] wrong, the argument about world-wide nuclear war proves to be a gross miscalculation, seeing as civilized countries with nuclear weapons didn't suddenly all decide to bomb each other in a futile attempt at... saving themselves.... by eradicating everyone they depend on economically. Instead, driven by greed and a desire for bank notes as an alternative to any representation of real worth as nations, they formed a new United Nations which was composed of all countries with nukes or any significant military force. They way they did this was to accuse any other country in the process of developing nuclear material (or other potential weapons of mass destruction) of being "terrorists", thus gaining approval of the rest of the allies [who were equally threatened by being shown up by the underdogs], to destroy the stability of these countries and create dependency without the ability to resist on an impacting scale.
  • With all outside threats dissolved, this new union of profitable/powerful nations had no one to distrust. Eventually, suspicions turned inward. Union nations became increasingly scrutinized, because all of them assumed someone wanted to be on the top of the totem pole, and innocent actions were viewed as disguised treachery. So there was a treaty to disarm themselves of nukes and other weapons of mass destruction. But unfortunately, there were several nations who would not agree to do so. The rest of The Union knew this was a sign of intent to dominate (and rightly so) and these nations were then cast in a light much the same as the light cast on the nations already taken out. It worked before, and it worked again.
  • Nations that refused to disarm were attacked and defeated by the rest of The Union. Nuclear stockpiles were all depleted. Man felt that the great human triumph was at hand. But growing suspicions about the technology advantages and lesser weapon advantages of other nations painted the picture that they were too unbalanced to maintain a state of equality across nations. Nukes were gone, but there still remained advantages, should war break out in The Union.
  • A treaty to disarm nations of missiles, missile defense systems, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and all other technologically advanced systems of warfare was created. Any nation that refused to comply would be treated as terrorists, and dealt with by The Union. Unfortunately, there were nations in The Union that would not comply. They were overpowered and disarmed by the rest of the allies in The Union and their power dissolved.
  • By this time, the technology and defense capability of nations were reverted to earlier ages. To defend your country would mean you did so with rifles and, most likely, your life. For a long time, The Union was at peace, but secret manufacturing processes were revealed by spies and The Union discovered that several nations were trying to advance their capabilities, should something happen.
  • The last treaty was proposed, which would destroy all weapons completely. The few remaining Union nations that agreed naturally overtook the nations that didn't (before signing the treaty) and eventually, there were no weapons apart from what knives you found, or what knives you could make. What stones you could throw.

  • The decline of technology brought humanity back to the stone ages. Government dissolved, and the remnants of civilization, the roads, the buildings, remained as headstones of our buried past. All our advances were a weapon against us. And although disease wiped most of the population out, due to the lack of medical treatment we once enjoyed, there were a few who survived in small tribes. And through the ages, stories of the old world became legends, then myths. Then after all the remnants were gone, the surviving population began to advance. And then... there was a very creative man... He changed their world. He invented a gun.
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.