If you had read what I had posted, you'd have known that it is not likely at all, and is not more likely then many other things described. It's not impossible, but it's so low down there that it's barely worth considering now.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
December 21st, 2012. The end of days?
- Thread starter miller483
- Start date
Zink
Smash Champion
lies.
go ahead and debate it, GoldShadow mooched out on us.
I'm pretty sure we can't launch nuclear missiles that far, though I'm not well rehearsed on this.
MattDel
Smash Apprentice
you have a pretty good point... why doesn't anybody ever consider this???
Haruno Kotetsu
Smash Ace
QFT, I told that to someone earlier on this topic.
I believe your right, they would sit here and stare at it in terror like our society would. Maybe they would do something like on Armageddon? Who knows. Its VERY unlikely it would happen though, and im asking the same question as you.
Just saying, the global warming topic is only on my opinion man. I just think its not as bad as most people think it is.
Besides, when judgement day DOES come, theres nothing we can do, so there's no point in knowing unless theres objectives you still need to complete in your life.
Zink
Smash Champion
First of all, they're astronomers, not astrologers. Astrology is the dumb study of constellations and horoscopes and stuff, science is the cool study of space using science instead of egotism. And projectory is not a word, it's trajectory.
I saw a documentary a few years ago about stopping meteorites from hitting the Earth, and the basic conclusion was that we'd be boned. One guy described the chances of stopping it with missiles as being the same as if a guy shoots a bullet at you from one side of a football field, and you shoot the bullet out of the air with your own gun before it hits you. Our observation of the sky is pretty limited, there are less than twenty thousand astronomers in the whole world and they mostly care about galaxies and black holes and gravitational anomalies and stuff like that.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
That's not what I've heard, tmw. The meteorites have a constant speed because space is a vacuum. They would use the same process used to calculate exactly where Mars would be to send a rover to crash into it.
It would be a matter of calculating the speed of the meteorite and then calculating its trajectory and then calculating the speed of the missile to intercept it. They would just have to compensate for how slow the missile compared to the meteorite and send the missile where the meteorite will be in the future.
It can all be done mathematically.
It would be a matter of calculating the speed of the meteorite and then calculating its trajectory and then calculating the speed of the missile to intercept it. They would just have to compensate for how slow the missile compared to the meteorite and send the missile where the meteorite will be in the future.
It can all be done mathematically.
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
Or maybe you don't have the knowledge to make such assumptions. See, people ignore where we come from, and what's the history of our world; if you knew the mechanics of evolution, you would see global warmings is the final step to human extinction.. Sadly, I can't debate that kind of complicated stuff in english, but would be extremely willing to make such debate in french, or link you to an interesting conference Hubert Reeves gave in Montréal a few years ago about climate change.
Do you speak french by chance ?
Zink
Smash Champion
sadly I do not speak french
too bad, because I know *plenty* about the subject. of course if GS was here we wouldn't have this problem... *hint hint* or anyone else *hint hint*Haruno Kotetsu
Smash Ace
I do not speak french, but I could use a translator. Do you have MSN?
I know all that. Just because you can hit a missile doesn't mean you'll be able to stop it or divert it. It's a huge chunk of rock coming right at us. Even if you do get it to break up, the smaller pieces hitting the planet seperately can be worse than one big impact.
But after looking around a bit, meteroties and **** hitting Earth probably won't really be a problem within our lifetimes.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deflection_asteroids_020214.html
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
'Plenty' as in "highering global temperature of one degree is not that bad" ?sadly I do not speak french
Sadly, an internet translator would simply butcher what I say
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
So I guess the example was wrong. It wouldn't be like a intercepting a bullet shot at you from across a football field because that is an example of difficulty of reaction time. A better example would be like trying to stop the pendulum of a grandfather clock by shooting it straight on with a nerf gun.
But that link was interesting and I was going to bring that up that there aren't even any meteorites coming within 10,000 for as long as we can see.
But that link was interesting and I was going to bring that up that there aren't even any meteorites coming within 10,000 for as long as we can see.
Haruno Kotetsu
Smash Ace
Yeah, they wont interpret [sp?] words more than 4 letters probably XD;Sadly, an internet translator would simply butcher what I say
Dont we have Laser technology...?
Okay, the trouble with hitting asteroids is not that we can't hit them; it's that it won't do much good. We can aim nukes at asteroid easily, but we'll have trouble hitting them when they're far enough away from Earth for the asteroid's trajectory to be significantly thrown off. You can't destroy asteroids with nukes easily. The ones we're worried about are just too big.
There are many ideas for keeping huge meteorites from hitting Earth. Almost all of them involve deflecting, not destroying, the asteroid.
I'm 99.9% sure that, if we see an asteroid coming, humanity will be able to stop it. There are no really big asteroids that have a chance of hitting us within the next decade, I believe. By the end of the next decade, deflecting asteroids will be easy stuff.
I personally am not worried about asteroids. If we can see something coming from years away, which we can with our asteroid-tracking abilities, and we can stop it, we will.
There are many ideas for keeping huge meteorites from hitting Earth. Almost all of them involve deflecting, not destroying, the asteroid.
I'm 99.9% sure that, if we see an asteroid coming, humanity will be able to stop it. There are no really big asteroids that have a chance of hitting us within the next decade, I believe. By the end of the next decade, deflecting asteroids will be easy stuff.
I personally am not worried about asteroids. If we can see something coming from years away, which we can with our asteroid-tracking abilities, and we can stop it, we will.
Wuss
Smash Champion
Conservative much?
on topic, Sir Isaac Newton predicted the world would end in 2060, but he used the bible, so I'm more inclined to believe the Mayans.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
Uh, he isn't a conservative.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
He is Llibertarian.
What gets me is the absurdity to believe that the Earth will succumb to anything that humans can do.
The Earth has survived millions of species coming and going throughout its lifetime--there's no reason to believe it still won't be here after we're gone.
And whats with everyone believing everything Al Gore says now? Al Gore also said he invented Internets.
The Earth has survived millions of species coming and going throughout its lifetime--there's no reason to believe it still won't be here after we're gone.
And whats with everyone believing everything Al Gore says now? Al Gore also said he invented Internets.
SirroMinus1
SiNiStEr MiNiStEr
if this really does happen who is scared to die >_>
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
1. Earth won't perish, humans will.
2. Al Gore bandwagon'd, that's all. When you believe in climate change (and I laugh at the need to say 'believe' in my sentence), you trust scientists over decades and extremely simple experiments which indicates CO2, CH4, NO2, and many more greenhouse gases cause highering of the temperature.
DiabolicScheme
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 18
I personally just think the Mayans didn't feel like making their calendar anymore.
"Meh, 2012 is far enough. That's YEARS away, we don't have to worry about it"
A bunch of hooplah over some calender makers being lazy.
"Meh, 2012 is far enough. That's YEARS away, we don't have to worry about it"
A bunch of hooplah over some calender makers being lazy.
And the date they chose just so happens to coincide with two major astronimcal/logical events? It's pretty obvious that they calculated when it would happen and thought something important would happen then. Besides, their calendar isn't ending, it's just restarting a new cycle. Like how December 31st is the "end" of our calendar but we don't think the world will end then.
I really don't think this has anything to do with an asteroid colliding with the Earth, or megntetic poles or anything like that. The Mayans just thought that a new age would begin on that date because Earth's axis is going to begin tilting in the other direction, and the sunrise on the winter solstice will align with the center of the galaxy.
my theory for the earth's apocalypse is that global warming is going to cause massive ice shelf and glacier melting.all of this water pressure is going to cause the tectonic plates at the bottom of the ocean to shift dramatically.this will result in tsunamis and earthquakes the likes of which we've never seen;essentially off the rictor scale.all of this water will cause massive flooding for people that are by the water or at a low altitude and they will die.to me,this isnt technically an apocalypse though.i believe that there will be about a 10 million people left (compared to our 6 trillion now).they will have to rebuild everything.and i actually do semi-believe in the date (December 21st,2012).Basically,i dont think its gonna happen,but im definitely praying or taking some sort of precaution on the whole deal.supposedly,vermont should be safe.so im all set . again this is all just a conspiracy theory.oh well,i guess we'll see.
. again this is all just a conspiracy theory.oh well,i guess we'll see.Zink
Smash Champion
link/source?
Even if that was true, the Earth's climate is changing all the time. Just around a hundred years ago people were worried about a new ice age (I'm not sure if it was around 100 years ago or not; I'd have to look up my source on that). A few degrees off doesn't make that big of a ripple in the water on a planet-size scale.
Teebs
Smash Champion
Who cares if the Miyan calendar ends then? Ours is different, so the Miyans can believe whatever they feel.
As for climate change, it is obvious that it is changing. People will believe that an ice age could happen over the next 100 years, but it doesn't, and then some other group of people will say that it will happen, once again, in the next 100 years. Every scientist, climatologist, meteorologist, etc. has their views on when the next ice age will happen. Next 100 years, or next 10,000 years, who knows? The movie, The Day After Tomorrow, is a great example of how it could happen. All of the events, maybe with the exception of the three large, hurricane-like storms would probably happen. Another good example of changing climates is Al Gore's presentation. It's obvious from those findings that something is happening. When ice is fading in places that it should be (i.e. Siberia, Greenland, Northern Canada, Antarctica, etc.), then something within our climate is happening. Now, you say that a few degrees isn't a "big ripple in the water," but add it up over the next 50 or so years, and then you will have your big ripple on a planet-sized scale. Take for example, on how climate in places around the US changes various ways. Here in Northern Indiana for example, over the past two years in January just after New Years, the temperature has hit 60 degrees (F) three times, when the temperatures should be in the 20's and 30's, and then we hit the end of the month, and our temperatures are just above 0 degrees (F), and at night, the temperatures have gotten as cold as -20 degrees, when it should be +20 degrees, and I am not talking about just one day, I am talking about a week or longer event. Both of these events happened here in the past two years, and at the same time. Now that should say something about climate change, including when patterns in temperature change drastically over short periods of time.
As for climate change, it is obvious that it is changing. People will believe that an ice age could happen over the next 100 years, but it doesn't, and then some other group of people will say that it will happen, once again, in the next 100 years. Every scientist, climatologist, meteorologist, etc. has their views on when the next ice age will happen. Next 100 years, or next 10,000 years, who knows? The movie, The Day After Tomorrow, is a great example of how it could happen. All of the events, maybe with the exception of the three large, hurricane-like storms would probably happen. Another good example of changing climates is Al Gore's presentation. It's obvious from those findings that something is happening. When ice is fading in places that it should be (i.e. Siberia, Greenland, Northern Canada, Antarctica, etc.), then something within our climate is happening. Now, you say that a few degrees isn't a "big ripple in the water," but add it up over the next 50 or so years, and then you will have your big ripple on a planet-sized scale. Take for example, on how climate in places around the US changes various ways. Here in Northern Indiana for example, over the past two years in January just after New Years, the temperature has hit 60 degrees (F) three times, when the temperatures should be in the 20's and 30's, and then we hit the end of the month, and our temperatures are just above 0 degrees (F), and at night, the temperatures have gotten as cold as -20 degrees, when it should be +20 degrees, and I am not talking about just one day, I am talking about a week or longer event. Both of these events happened here in the past two years, and at the same time. Now that should say something about climate change, including when patterns in temperature change drastically over short periods of time.
Zink
Smash Champion
wow, a late winter twice in a row is now equal to a century long trend? the field of statistics is changing every day!
also, Day After Tomorrow/Inconvenient Truth are both pretty much garbage and have been shown to have little or no scientific basis. Want the sources, which you seem to omit?
Teebs
Smash Champion
sure. if my point needs to be corrected, then I might as well see some extra sources.
Also, I'm not talking about a late winter, I'm talking about things that have tended to happen out of the unusual over the past two years, that change during the winter, after it has been drastically cold and suddenly becomes spring for a small period of time, and then as if we lived in central Canada for another short period of time. As I used to remember it, it was never THAT warm in January for our area in past years, so it could have some tell-tale of climate change, even if it is the smallest bit of story.
Also, I'm not talking about a late winter, I'm talking about things that have tended to happen out of the unusual over the past two years, that change during the winter, after it has been drastically cold and suddenly becomes spring for a small period of time, and then as if we lived in central Canada for another short period of time. As I used to remember it, it was never THAT warm in January for our area in past years, so it could have some tell-tale of climate change, even if it is the smallest bit of story.
Zink
Smash Champion
this might take a few minutes to gather.
ok first, youtube "the great global warming swindle". It's a documentary that essentially counters all the points raised in Incovenient Truth. There's also plenty of analyses and critiques to back it up, including an interview with the author.
next is a thing challenging global warming journalism- http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
these are both rather long so more later if needed.
here's another- remember that figure that NASA put out, saying 1998 is the hottest year on record? yeah, that was wrong.
and another bit- http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ it's just the homepage of that documentary, but has links to several supporting articles and such.
ok first, youtube "the great global warming swindle". It's a documentary that essentially counters all the points raised in Incovenient Truth. There's also plenty of analyses and critiques to back it up, including an interview with the author.
next is a thing challenging global warming journalism- http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
these are both rather long so more later if needed.
here's another- remember that figure that NASA put out, saying 1998 is the hottest year on record? yeah, that was wrong.
and another bit- http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ it's just the homepage of that documentary, but has links to several supporting articles and such.
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
My first point is took from "History of the Universe", a conference given last year which I attended in an university in Montréal. Hubert Reeves, as with many scientist, informed us about climate change, and the potent effects of such a disaster.
My second point is an expriment you can do in any laboratory. Mesure the difference in temperature of a glass full of CO2 compared to one containing only air, and my point is made. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gases will either have the effect of holding heat near the ground, or reacting with the ozone layer, which expose us to dangerous sun rays.
Again, I'd like to debate and support the "pro-climate changing" side (if it's possible to say that...), but I'm bound by my language.
Zink
Smash Champion
ok, I will look up Hubert Reeves.
and I think I'll see if I can check up on that lab, too. I'm interested in trying a few approaches.
and I think I'll see if I can check up on that lab, too. I'm interested in trying a few approaches.
gunterrsmash01
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,533
Gonna chip in this brilliant thread and stay right on topic.
The mayans and all others predicted 12/21/12 based on scientific/mathematic/whatever studies.
People just assume this date will be apocalypse because, like someone else noted, humans love to predict their own end. I just think this date will be a major change in Earth, like the seasons changing. SOMETHING will happen, but nothing catostrophic I think.
The mayans and all others predicted 12/21/12 based on scientific/mathematic/whatever studies.
People just assume this date will be apocalypse because, like someone else noted, humans love to predict their own end. I just think this date will be a major change in Earth, like the seasons changing. SOMETHING will happen, but nothing catostrophic I think.
Zink
Smash Champion
oh yeah for major global warming lulz, it snowed yesterday. In NE US. Where we don't get snow until FEBRUARY.
when you say NE,is that meaning northeastern?