77 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

mastermoo, on 5 Apr 2009, 11:20, said:

Major Fuckup, on 4 Apr 2009, 8:14, said:

Høbbsey, on 4 Apr 2009, 15:43, said:

We'll soak up all the resources Earth has and move to another planet. Of course, this will become a cycle of destruction for those other planets we relocate to.

ya thats if we can master space travel before that happens

by the time ALL the resources are gone we should have that technology. unless we get rid of famines, war, and poverty, which would lead to a HUGE jump in populatioin. but i doubt that'll happen

Even IF we learn space travel we'll never get to any planetoid that will sustain our form of life, even though there are billions upon billions of such planetoids in the universe by even the most conservative models. We'd need to get pretty insanely lucky to survive by those means, piling infinitesimal chance on infinitesimal chance.

[CommanderJB]

With enough effort, there is no real reason why Mars could not sustain large amounts of Human life. Terraforming might sound terribly SF, but the materials required to turn Mars' atmosphere into one habitable for Human life - water and carbon - are readily available in vast quantities literally right on the surface. I urge anyone interested to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars - while it takes a few literary liberties, as does any fictional story, the basic science is well-grounded and entirely plausible. In short we could spread our metaphorical eggs to at least one other metaphorical basket in the next couple of hundred years at least if we really gave it a try, but I'm pessimistic as to whether we truly will. But in order to actually sustain human life long-term, we need to make genuinely massive and radical changes to society as we know it, and that will take at least a couple of hundred years until we're backed into the sort of corner where we have to whether we want to or not (token efforts may take place in the mean time, and some areas may begin to look up, but we're still not going to make a society which is actually truly sustainable unless we have to).

The end of Human life on Earth will come when either Humans will it with our weapons (but I can see no feasible scenario for that happening any time soon) or when a natural even such as a gamma-ray burst or asteroid/cometary impact of absolutely mammoth size occurs, which could happen any time from the next couple of years to the next couple of billion. The end of the Earth itself will not occur until the end of the Solar System, which will take approximately five billion years. Of course in that time we might blunder into something huge (like, oh, I don't know, another Moon) but the chances of that happening are really not that big, and the chances of it getting past the other rather larger goalkeepers in the system (particularly Jupiter, which continues to shield us from extra-Solar material on a highly regular basis - Comet Shoemaker-Levy was a rather spectacular example) are even smaller.

Edited by CommanderJB, 05 April 2009 - 10:46.

[Chyros]

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 12:45, said:

With enough effort, there is no real reason why Mars could not sustain large amounts of Human life. Terraforming might sound terribly SF, but the materials required to turn Mars' atmosphere into one habitable for Human life - water and carbon - are readily available in vast quantities literally right on the surface.

Some Mars facts:
Surface temperature: +25C to -120C (cold)
Size: about one six-and-a-halfth of Earth (will DEFINITELY not harbour more people than Earth)
Gravity: 0,38 g
Planetary magnetic field: none to speak of

Mars' channels are an optical illusion, the water on the surface is present on the poles as CO₂-water ice, and the surface is composed mostly of silica-enriched basalt and iron rust. Doubtlessly you could, with proper cultivation, grow some species of very hardy plants of some parts of its surface after the whole planet has been terraformed (that is, after a whole atmosphere has been grown for it) but how could this possibly harbour the entire human race? Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova. Though it's about unthinkable that humans would live long enough to experience that event.

It would be worth the trouble if it'd make humans able to stand on the tallest mountain in the solar system, though (Mount Olympos) .

[Dauth]

Yea, good luck surviving that first cosmic storm on Mars, trust me your kids would be mutated.

[Zhao]

Well maybe Someone Could Cut the Reproductive Programs Of All Living Things then we Shall Slowly Die........



But Seriously I believe in most likely a Nuclear war I mean look how many of them we have

[Dauth]

I'm not going into the details of the Radiation poisoning you'd suffer too, but the whole point is that if you cannot procreate then its a fundamentally flawed suggestion.

[CommanderJB]

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 12:45, said:

With enough effort, there is no real reason why Mars could not sustain large amounts of Human life. Terraforming might sound terribly SF, but the materials required to turn Mars' atmosphere into one habitable for Human life - water and carbon - are readily available in vast quantities literally right on the surface.

Some Mars facts:
Surface temperature: +25C to -120C (cold)

Which is a primarily a function of the lack of heat retention due to the nearly non-existent atmosphere. Injecting large quantities of carbon dioxide and oxygen into the atmosphere will result in a marked improvement in these statistics.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Size: about one six-and-a-halfth of Earth (will DEFINITELY not harbour more people than Earth)

I never said it would. What I said was that it could hold 'large amounts of human life'. I would define that as a dispersed planetary society on the order of at the absolute least several thousand or so, enough to ensure the survival of the human race in the event of a catastrophe on Earth. While it will patently not reach this total any time soon and to an extent will require improvements in the technology available to us, I nevertheless believe it is possible.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Gravity: 0,38 g

Which does not really effect how possible or otherwise it is for Humans to live there. Long-term microgravity experiments with astronauts on Mir and the ISS have proven that while living in such environments for protracted lengths of time does result in a loss of bone and muscle mass, it is in no respects lethal. Just because a long-term Martian society would be comprised of individuals physically weaker than their Terran progenitors does not mean that it is impossible.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Planetary magnetic field: none to speak of

This is indeed the most considerable obstacle when it comes to establishing a self-sustaining Martian society, but it does not make it impossible either. The slow process of thickening the atmosphere, including the addition of an ozone layer or equivalent, could theoretically lessen the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. While I am under no illusions that it would on its own protect inhabitants from a cosmic storm, it could get it down to a level manageable by smart (i.e. partially sub-surface, with sleeping quarters totally sub-surface) dwelling construction. Again, please read Red Mars if you'd like to see some plausible scientific theory for a Human outpost on Mars; for example, any permanent buildings on Mars would actually need to be constructed of Mars brick, not metal or composites (given the fact that they would be unavailable, or at least uneconomical), and layered deeply enough (it's not like you have a shortage of available building materials) such a construction will provide a safe habitat for humans in the event of Solar storms.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Mars' channels are an optical illusion, the water on the surface is present on the poles as CO₂-water ice, and the surface is composed mostly of silica-enriched basalt and iron rust.

Yes, thanks, I am aware that Lowell was speaking nonsense. But the results from the Phoenix lander and Opportunity and Spirit rovers prove that water ice is locked up just below the Martian soil - in fact, in a lot of places it's quite like permafrost. The presence of near-surface water ice on Mars in at least some locations has been a known fact for several years now, and all indications are that there is far, far more than we've found so far.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Doubtlessly you could, with proper cultivation, grow some species of very hardy plants of some parts of its surface after the whole planet has been terraformed (that is, after a whole atmosphere has been grown for it) but how could this possibly harbour the entire human race?

I never said it would.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova.

Given that the sun physically cannot 'go supernova' as it is several orders of magnitude too small and of the wrong type and temperature, that argument is moot, and there are few other scenarios that would involve the destruction of both Earth and Mars simultaneously. My primary concern is protection from a major cosmic impact, which a Martian society would at least help to provide.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

It would be worth the trouble if it'd make humans able to stand on the tallest mountain in the solar system, though (Mount Olympos) .

Agreed!

Edited by CommanderJB, 05 April 2009 - 22:59.

[NewMessageN00b]

An opinion per person.

The world will not end for me.
I will end for the.

[Sicarius]

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 16:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova.

Given that the sun physically cannot 'go supernova' as it is several orders of magnitude too small and of the wrong type and temperature, that argument is moot, and there are few other scenarios that would involve the destruction of both Earth and Mars simultaneously. My primary concern is protection from a major cosmic impact, which a Martian society would at least help to provide.

Supernova, no. But It will eventually become a red giant, which will kill earth all the same. (Although this won't effect us for ~1 billion years, so I agree with what you said about cosmic impacts which happen much more frequently. It would have to be a truly massive comet/meteor though.)

Edited by Sicarius, 06 April 2009 - 05:57.

[CommanderJB]

Sicarius, on 6 Apr 2009, 15:51, said:

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 16:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova.

Given that the sun physically cannot 'go supernova' as it is several orders of magnitude too small and of the wrong type and temperature, that argument is moot, and there are few other scenarios that would involve the destruction of both Earth and Mars simultaneously. My primary concern is protection from a major cosmic impact, which a Martian society would at least help to provide.

Supernova, no. But It will eventually become a red giant, which will kill earth all the same. (Although this won't effect us for a billion years, so I agree with what you said about cosmic impacts which happen much more frequently. It would have to be a truly massive comet/meteor though.)

Of course; but given the (five) billion year time span before that happens, I honestly don't think it's justifiable as a threat to Human existence. By that time we'll either have moved on from Earth to something we can't even begin to imagine, or, rather more likely IMPO, not be around as Humans at all. In terms of 'the end of the world' it is of course a final guarantee regardless of other factors, but then I never said expanding to Mars would make it otherwise.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 April 2009 - 05:59.

[BeefJeRKy]

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 1:59, said:

Sicarius, on 6 Apr 2009, 15:51, said:

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 16:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova.

Given that the sun physically cannot 'go supernova' as it is several orders of magnitude too small and of the wrong type and temperature, that argument is moot, and there are few other scenarios that would involve the destruction of both Earth and Mars simultaneously. My primary concern is protection from a major cosmic impact, which a Martian society would at least help to provide.

Supernova, no. But It will eventually become a red giant, which will kill earth all the same. (Although this won't effect us for a billion years, so I agree with what you said about cosmic impacts which happen much more frequently. It would have to be a truly massive comet/meteor though.)

Of course; but given the (five) billion year time span before that happens, I honestly don't think it's justifiable as a threat to Human existence. By that time we'll either have moved on from Earth to something we can't even begin to imagine, or, rather more likely IMPO, not be around as Humans at all. In terms of 'the end of the world' it is of course a final guarantee regardless of other factors, but then I never said expanding to Mars would make it otherwise.

5 billion years is way more than enough time for evolution to kick in...

[CommanderJB]

Quite.

[Chyros]

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 0:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 12:45, said:

With enough effort, there is no real reason why Mars could not sustain large amounts of Human life. Terraforming might sound terribly SF, but the materials required to turn Mars' atmosphere into one habitable for Human life - water and carbon - are readily available in vast quantities literally right on the surface.

Some Mars facts:
Surface temperature: +25C to -120C (cold)

Which is a primarily a function of the lack of heat retention due to the nearly non-existent atmosphere. Injecting large quantities of carbon dioxide and oxygen into the atmosphere will result in a marked improvement in these statistics.

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 0:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Mars' channels are an optical illusion, the water on the surface is present on the poles as CO₂-water ice, and the surface is composed mostly of silica-enriched basalt and iron rust.

Yes, thanks, I am aware that Lowell was speaking nonsense. But the results from the Phoenix lander and Opportunity and Spirit rovers prove that water ice is locked up just below the Martian soil - in fact, in a lot of places it's quite like permafrost. The presence of near-surface water ice on Mars in at least some locations has been a known fact for several years now, and all indications are that there is far, far more than we've found so far.

Theoretically it IS possible to inject oxygen into the atmosphere by first thawing the sub-surface ice, then somehow extracting it globally and then electrolysing it. Mars is our neigbour planet though - wouldn't we have confirmed some parts of all that abundant ice by now if it'd be in any place it's plausible enough to be able to extract it from?

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 0:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Planetary magnetic field: none to speak of

This is indeed the most considerable obstacle when it comes to establishing a self-sustaining Martian society, but it does not make it impossible either. The slow process of thickening the atmosphere, including the addition of an ozone layer or equivalent, could theoretically lessen the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. While I am under no illusions that it would on its own protect inhabitants from a cosmic storm, it could get it down to a level manageable by smart (i.e. partially sub-surface, with sleeping quarters totally sub-surface) dwelling construction. Again, please read Red Mars if you'd like to see some plausible scientific theory for a Human outpost on Mars; for example, any permanent buildings on Mars would actually need to be constructed of Mars brick, not metal or composites (given the fact that they would be unavailable, or at least uneconomical), and layered deeply enough (it's not like you have a shortage of available building materials) such a construction will provide a safe habitat for humans in the event of Solar storms.

One lucky thing; if you get oxygen into the atmosphere, you get a free ozone layer with it.

However, build out of mars brick? I agree, it's impossible to fly in terraforming reactors/extractors/refineries + solar panels/nuclear reactors in from Earth since anything that big or heavy will not leave Earth, but how are we to mine all that brick? Or dig all those huge holes? Again, we can't fly big mining equipment there, which is exactly what you'd need to penetrate rock-solid, pure basalt. Mining gets extremely difficult at low gravity, as well. And beside all that: if we'd even manage that by some divine act, where would we get all the nitrogen from? Mars contains nearly none by itself, and no ammonia either.

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 0:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Size: about one six-and-a-halfth of Earth (will DEFINITELY not harbour more people than Earth)

I never said it would. What I said was that it could hold 'large amounts of human life'. I would define that as a dispersed planetary society on the order of at the absolute least several thousand or so, enough to ensure the survival of the human race in the event of a catastrophe on Earth. While it will patently not reach this total any time soon and to an extent will require improvements in the technology available to us, I nevertheless believe it is possible.

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 0:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Doubtlessly you could, with proper cultivation, grow some species of very hardy plants of some parts of its surface after the whole planet has been terraformed (that is, after a whole atmosphere has been grown for it) but how could this possibly harbour the entire human race?

I never said it would.

I meant that I can't see even a few thousand people living off Martian food. Mars if really just a big ball of rock that's quite cold and covered with rust dust. That means you cannot start growing food until you've made the whole atmosphere, and after the "soil" has been thawed (and "ploughed", and getting a vacuum cleaner for the dust would be useful too ). And even then, you could not just plant anywhere, no more than you can here. Martian soil will not sustain that many people, I think. And that's disregarding the fact that you cannot live on just one or two kinds of vegetables alone. Humans need fats, proteins, and a whole spectrum of vitamins and minerals. Especially children.

Scope, on 6 Apr 2009, 8:12, said:

CommanderJB, on 6 Apr 2009, 1:59, said:

Sicarius, on 6 Apr 2009, 15:51, said:

CommanderJB, on 5 Apr 2009, 16:55, said:

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 6:47, said:

Besides, we aren't safe from global extinction events on Mars either, particularly the sun going supernova.

Given that the sun physically cannot 'go supernova' as it is several orders of magnitude too small and of the wrong type and temperature, that argument is moot, and there are few other scenarios that would involve the destruction of both Earth and Mars simultaneously. My primary concern is protection from a major cosmic impact, which a Martian society would at least help to provide.

Supernova, no. But It will eventually become a red giant, which will kill earth all the same. (Although this won't effect us for a billion years, so I agree with what you said about cosmic impacts which happen much more frequently. It would have to be a truly massive comet/meteor though.)

Of course; but given the (five) billion year time span before that happens, I honestly don't think it's justifiable as a threat to Human existence. By that time we'll either have moved on from Earth to something we can't even begin to imagine, or, rather more likely IMPO, not be around as Humans at all. In terms of 'the end of the world' it is of course a final guarantee regardless of other factors, but then I never said expanding to Mars would make it otherwise.

5 billion years is way more than enough time for evolution to kick in...

My mistake, it's not called a supernova, no, but what I meant will happen at the same time and have the same consequences for us. But I can't see it happening that humans will survive another 10000 years anyway, disregarding terran nuclear events. Humans are just weak.

[CommanderJB]

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 20:28, said:

Theoretically it IS possible to inject oxygen into the atmosphere by first thawing the sub-surface ice, then somehow extracting it globally and then electrolysing it. Mars is our neigbour planet though - wouldn't we have confirmed some parts of all that abundant ice by now if it'd be in any place it's plausible enough to be able to extract it from?

We sure would!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1686...nt-impacts.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0806...ice-update.html

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 20:28, said:

One lucky thing; if you get oxygen into the atmosphere, you get a free ozone layer with it.

Coolio, wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 20:28, said:

However, build out of mars brick? I agree, it's impossible to fly in terraforming reactors/extractors/refineries + solar panels/nuclear reactors in from Earth since anything that big or heavy will not leave Earth, but how are we to mine all that brick? Or dig all those huge holes? Again, we can't fly big mining equipment there, which is exactly what you'd need to penetrate rock-solid, pure basalt. Mining gets extremely difficult at low gravity, as well. And beside all that: if we'd even manage that by some divine act, where would we get all the nitrogen from? Mars contains nearly none by itself, and no ammonia either.

Well, firstly, we don't 'mine brick', we make it from compressed Martian soil just like we make bricks from clay here on Earth. As for construction equipment, you're correct, it would need to be transported there. I don't disagree that this would be an extraordinarily difficult task to put it mildly. But two things should make it possible: a space elevator (which I appreciate is a huge assumption in itself), and vast (dare I say astronomical?) quantities of cold, hard cash. We have the technology to set up a human base on Mars now, and while I'm not sure that we could build a sustainable society there using today's technology, in two hundred years or so I can see absolutely no reason why it would be impossible. It won't happen, because no one is willing to invest; but that doesn't mean it can't happen. We went from back-of-the-garden fireworks to satellite-launching ICBMs in less than twenty years. We can do it again, if we try.
Also, interestingly and contrary to what I had believed for many years, there have been genuine nuclear reactors launched into space, though their design is of course vastly different to ground-based ones. Thus, with a few minor miracles of reactor design, and a rather sweaty landing for the controllers (no doubt done mostly by telerobotics - or perhaps even autonomous ones if we have progressed far enough in their design) I imagine that power on Mars would be a solvable problem.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 20:28, said:

I meant that I can't see even a few thousand people living off Martian food. Mars if really just a big ball of rock that's quite cold and covered with rust dust. That means you cannot start growing food until you've made the whole atmosphere, and after the "soil" has been thawed (and "ploughed", and getting a vacuum cleaner for the dust would be useful too ). And even then, you could not just plant anywhere, no more than you can here. Martian soil will not sustain that many people, I think. And that's disregarding the fact that you cannot live on just one or two kinds of vegetables alone. Humans need fats, proteins, and a whole spectrum of vitamins and minerals. Especially children.

The obvious answer here is hydroponics. Long-term experiments such as the Mars-500 space simulator that has just been started in Russia aim to address the question of whether it can provide needs; the answer so far has been 'not really', but with advances in genetic engineering and with the applications from the lessons learned here I still believe that it is fundamentally possible given enough time, patience and mountains of cash.

Chyros, on 6 Apr 2009, 20:28, said:

My mistake, it's not called a supernova, no, but what I meant will happen at the same time and have the same consequences for us. But I can't see it happening that humans will survive another 10000 years anyway, disregarding terran nuclear events. Humans are just weak.

Indeed - which is why I cannot see it is a valid argument for the futility of expanding to Mars.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 April 2009 - 11:29.

[Chyros]

I admit that with gargantuan investments, years and years of research, and lots of luck, we might be able to fix some of the logistic problems you quoted, yes. But it still doesn't answer the question of how to build a proper atmosphere. You can get oxygen from water on Mars, yes, and I imagine the added hydrogen could be put to good use, but making an atmosphere that actually works well isn't that simple. Especially the nitrogen problem - how would we ever fix that? You can't just make an atmosphere all out of oxygen, we'd be eradicated like pests (literally - oxygen is used to eradicate cockroach infestations).

[Alias]

Last time I remember this discussion was meant to be about the Earth, not Mars.

Even if we can retreat to Mars if earth is inhabitable, that isn't the topic of this thread, the topic is how the earth gets to that inhabitable/non-existant state in the first place.

[partyzanpaulzy]

When I was 8, I read sun will end as Nova (but there will be still the white dwarf which will slowly cool down into the black dwarf).
I thought it was correct, but recently I have read the Sun isn't heavy enough, so dying Red Giant will throw it's layers into planetary nebula (which would be created even by Nova, but this will be probably more dense).

To those 5 billion years: I have seen some documentary film made by BBC, they said from 500 million to 1 billion years the Earth will dry out because of growing Sun activity. Eventually this planet will end as Venus.

I think Earth could be moved by some really advanced civilization living there.

Also, have you heard there is possibility of the Earth becoming snowball without man's activity?


I am aware Earth will get more and more polluted, people will have to wear respirants, mutants will appear, nanite viruses will be common,... These conditions will cause wars, famine, ... In the end, people will have to evacuate the Earth.

BTW, zombie apocalypse, anyone.

[Dauth]

Snowball Earth is possible, but with the long lived pollutants in the atmosphere its unlikely for a while. It would require a significant change in how Stato decks behave in marine environments.

[BeefJeRKy]

Dauth, on 6 Apr 2009, 11:05, said:

Snowball Earth is possible, but with the long lived pollutants in the atmosphere its unlikely for a while. It would require a significant change in how Stato decks behave in marine environments.

Dauth will your research cover any possible ends to the Earth ?

[Dauth]

Scope, on 6 Apr 2009, 18:13, said:

Dauth, on 6 Apr 2009, 11:05, said:

Snowball Earth is possible, but with the long lived pollutants in the atmosphere its unlikely for a while. It would require a significant change in how Stato decks behave in marine environments.

Dauth will your research cover any possible ends to the Earth ?

Actually snowball Earth is one of the ways things could go wrong if we don't get my research right. Though I don't believe the technique I'm working on is powerful enough to create a snowball on its own. Though in combination with a couple of others we could have this planet nice and frozen.

[Libains]

I imagine Dauth will just wind me up so much that I will implode and form a massive black hole, swallowing the universe in one swift blow. Sorry folks.

If that isn't the case, an asteroid is my best bet - while I can't see it happening any time soon, we can control stuff happening on our Earth, but not outside of it.

[SorataZ]

Well, IF the asteroid Aphophis does not hit the earth in 2029, he WILL do so in 2036, so we have to invent something to prevent it. Or the experiments at CERN could go horribly wrong so black matter is created and thus the same effect a black hole has. Or some terrorists manage it to explode some Nuclear warheads and specific positions annihilating a huge amount of the population. Or the Gulf stream wears off like in 'The Day After Tomorrow' creating a new ice age. The possibilities are infinite.

[Golan]

CERN doesn't nearly have enough power to create anything that could threaten earth. A single nuclear bomb can hardly kill more than 10 mio people, seeing that terrorists are very unlikely to acquire real nuclear weaponry (as opposed to dirty bombs) and the world population is about 7 billion people, that's hardly the end. 'The Day After Tomorrow' is, how shall I put it, fictional in its display of the results of the Gulf stream wearing of...

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 17:59.

[SorataZ]

Golan, on 23 Apr 2009, 19:58, said:

CERN doesn't nearly have enough power to create anything that could threaten earth. A single nuclear bomb can hardly kill more than 10 mio people, seeing that terrorists are very unlikely to acquire real nuclear weaponry (as opposed to dirty bombs) and the world population is about 7 billion people, that's hardly the end. 'The Day After Tomorrow' is, how shall I put it, fictional in its display of the results of the Gulf stream wearing of...

@CERN: the russian scientists where at our school to talk about the clean crystals they utilise to direct the light and other particles (one of these crystals is worth a big city). After asking what could happen if 2 Au atoms actually crash (what is the sense behing the experiment), there is this ultra small possibility of creating black matter.
@Nuclear: since North Korea, Iran and other nations now start utilizing nuclear energy, it will no be long to have terrorists stealing nuclear material to build bombs. Actually, a person graduading with the knowledge of 10 years school, therefore 6 years physics, could build an A-bomb, so yeah, that is no problem.
@TDAT: when the Gulf stream vanishes will the same happen what happened at least 3 times before: the climaticil change will have such an impact the northern hemisphere will freeze and since snow is white it will reflect the sunlight so it will become even colder.

[Golan]

KamuiK, on 23 Apr 2009, 18:11, said:

@CERN: the russian scientists where at our school to talk about the clean crystals they utilise to direct the light and other particles (one of these crystals is worth a big city). After asking what could happen if 2 Au atoms actually crash (what is the sense behing the experiment), there is this ultra small possibility of creating black matter.

The quantity of dark matter created this way would in no way be an issue - CERN simply doesn't have enough energy. Likewise, CERN cannot generate enough power to reach the critical mass for a Black Hole.

KamuiK, on 23 Apr 2009, 18:11, said:

@Nuclear: since North Korea, Iran and other nations now start utilizing nuclear energy, it will no be long to have terrorists stealing nuclear material to build bombs. Actually, a person graduading with the knowledge of 10 years school, therefore 6 years physics, could build an A-bomb, so yeah, that is no problem.

Nuclear material is however not per se adequate for a nuclear bomb. True, you can build a dirty bomb from it, but those merely kill a couple hundred of people and make an area of several km² uninhabitable - no real loss. A person with 6 years of school physics might be able to understand how a bomb works but not build anything that comes remotely close to military grade hardware. Even a state of the art H-Bomb could at most eradicate one metropolis; unless some maniac would take it as a pretext to start a round of Global Thermonuclear War, terrorists would need to have hundreds of such bombs and attack very large cities with them - this is a logistic impossibility.

KamuiK, on 23 Apr 2009, 18:11, said:

@TDAT: when the Gulf stream vanishes will the same happen what happened at least 3 times before: the climaticil change will have such an impact the northern hemisphere will freeze and since snow is white it will reflect the sunlight so it will become even colder.

Which takes a couple of dozen if not hundreds of years. Sure it gets inconvenient but it certainly won't kill us all.

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 18:27.