Can't be arsed to reply cos anything I say will be deleted.
Might be an idea to look at the freedom of speech thread.
Might be an idea to look at the freedom of speech thread.
Stormy Waters Ahead?
- Thread starter DraizeTrain
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
![:\](/images/smilies/submitted/smark/ohwell.gif "Oh Well :\")
saw something on discovery a while ago.
apparently once in the so many years the earth comes very close to dead planets (that went supernova ages ago)
These dead planets then radiate earth with tons of deadly radiations and cos the world population to decrease with something like 33%.
Two students in india studied this.
And apparently there is a pattern in this.
According to them the earth will be very close to a dead planet in 150 years, which would take care of over population.
Fact or fiction, well i don't know but it sounded very realistic.
apparently once in the so many years the earth comes very close to dead planets (that went supernova ages ago)
These dead planets then radiate earth with tons of deadly radiations and cos the world population to decrease with something like 33%.
Two students in india studied this.
And apparently there is a pattern in this.
According to them the earth will be very close to a dead planet in 150 years, which would take care of over population.
Fact or fiction, well i don't know but it sounded very realistic.
err, no.
I knew discovery's standards had slipped, but howeeeeeeeeeeee.
That's about as wildly inaccurate as things can get.
oh, and Deadboy?
no-one is even remotely contesting that the population is growing. The argument is whether earth can sustain the elevated population.
I knew discovery's standards had slipped, but howeeeeeeeeeeee.
That's about as wildly inaccurate as things can get.
oh, and Deadboy?
no-one is even remotely contesting that the population is growing. The argument is whether earth can sustain the elevated population.
Heh, I certainly aint a know it all.. but I do know a reasonable amount about both physics and cosmology.
So, ...One explanation coming up
>apparently once in the so many years the earth comes very >close to dead planets (that went supernova ages ago)
okay:
1) Planets don't supernova. Stars do.
Even the largest planets we have observed are massively below the material density to even begin the fusion process which occurs in stars, never mind become massive enough to actually supernova.
2) There are nine known planets in our solar system. After nearly a century of searching. a tenth planet is unlikely but not impossible. There certainly aren't lots of them floating around. Your program *could* have been referring to a class of material we call "Oort Cloud objects" or even macho's "Massive Cometary Halo Objects", but the existance of this is still complete conjecture.
3) Of the kown planets, only venus, mars (because they are closest to us), jupiter and saturn (because they are so massive)have an effect on us that can even be measured. The gravity other planets exert has such a microscopic effect that minor things like fluctuations in the Solar wind cause a greater effect.
If the program was talking about machos or oort cloud objects, then it's wrong, pure and simple, these things are so far away from us (over a million times further away than the sun!) that they cannot exert a gravitational influence, and to give out high enough radiation levels to affect us, they would have to be producing energy at levels billions of times above that of the sun.
>These dead planets then radiate earth with tons of deadly
>radiations and cos the world population to decrease with >something like 33%.
The Earth is bombarded constantly by radiation. It's one of the biggest concerns over a manned mars trip. Current designs for Mars vehicles always include huge amounts of shielding, or do things like using the water storage as radiation shielding.
And high levels of cosmic radiation don't work like that.
There's a physics principle called the inverse square law that applies here. basically, if you double the distance from an object, the radiation from it drops to a quarter not a half. at triple the distance, the radiation drops to a ninth, and so on.. Thats for a "point source" like a star, or a normal object.
If we were to suffer from being in the direct path of a Coronal Mass Ejection, or from being on the beam axis of a massive energy event (Stephen Hawking suggested one such possible event as the graviational forces of a black hole pulling a massive star apart) then the radiataion dose would completely, utterly destroy life on earth, and irradiate the planet so thoroughly that nothing would live here again.
A partial extinction could be caused by an asteroidal impact, but I have never seen a theory which would allow this to happen by cosmic radiation.
>Two students in india studied this.
They haven't published in the peer reviewed journals as far as I can find, and a theory like this would get a lot of press if there was any evidence to support it. Basically, if someone goes to the press, but doesn't bother to submit their paper to the appropriate scientific review boards, it smacks of BS straight away.
>And apparently there is a pattern in this. According to them the >earth will be very close to a dead planet in 150 years, which
>would take care of over population.
150 years is just too short a time for a cosmic event. If an object so massive to be able to affect radiation levels on our planet's surface were that close, we would be experiencing major effects already.
>Fact or fiction, well i don't know but it sounded very realistic.
That's what TV does best. Being close to the facts is not.
So, ...One explanation coming up
>apparently once in the so many years the earth comes very >close to dead planets (that went supernova ages ago)
okay:
1) Planets don't supernova. Stars do.
Even the largest planets we have observed are massively below the material density to even begin the fusion process which occurs in stars, never mind become massive enough to actually supernova.
2) There are nine known planets in our solar system. After nearly a century of searching. a tenth planet is unlikely but not impossible. There certainly aren't lots of them floating around. Your program *could* have been referring to a class of material we call "Oort Cloud objects" or even macho's "Massive Cometary Halo Objects", but the existance of this is still complete conjecture.
3) Of the kown planets, only venus, mars (because they are closest to us), jupiter and saturn (because they are so massive)have an effect on us that can even be measured. The gravity other planets exert has such a microscopic effect that minor things like fluctuations in the Solar wind cause a greater effect.
If the program was talking about machos or oort cloud objects, then it's wrong, pure and simple, these things are so far away from us (over a million times further away than the sun!) that they cannot exert a gravitational influence, and to give out high enough radiation levels to affect us, they would have to be producing energy at levels billions of times above that of the sun.
>These dead planets then radiate earth with tons of deadly
>radiations and cos the world population to decrease with >something like 33%.
The Earth is bombarded constantly by radiation. It's one of the biggest concerns over a manned mars trip. Current designs for Mars vehicles always include huge amounts of shielding, or do things like using the water storage as radiation shielding.
And high levels of cosmic radiation don't work like that.
There's a physics principle called the inverse square law that applies here. basically, if you double the distance from an object, the radiation from it drops to a quarter not a half. at triple the distance, the radiation drops to a ninth, and so on.. Thats for a "point source" like a star, or a normal object.
If we were to suffer from being in the direct path of a Coronal Mass Ejection, or from being on the beam axis of a massive energy event (Stephen Hawking suggested one such possible event as the graviational forces of a black hole pulling a massive star apart) then the radiataion dose would completely, utterly destroy life on earth, and irradiate the planet so thoroughly that nothing would live here again.
A partial extinction could be caused by an asteroidal impact, but I have never seen a theory which would allow this to happen by cosmic radiation.
>Two students in india studied this.
They haven't published in the peer reviewed journals as far as I can find, and a theory like this would get a lot of press if there was any evidence to support it. Basically, if someone goes to the press, but doesn't bother to submit their paper to the appropriate scientific review boards, it smacks of BS straight away.
>And apparently there is a pattern in this. According to them the >earth will be very close to a dead planet in 150 years, which
>would take care of over population.
150 years is just too short a time for a cosmic event. If an object so massive to be able to affect radiation levels on our planet's surface were that close, we would be experiencing major effects already.
>Fact or fiction, well i don't know but it sounded very realistic.
That's what TV does best. Being close to the facts is not.
erm yeah, if the 10th planet is real though watch out next year 
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/planetx.htm
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/planetx.htm
Well i just watch star trek and don't bother with things i know absolutely nothing about.
But i just did a search on google , upon reading some of this it is all becoming more clear again (well the discovery show at least)
on the following link ya can find some info about supernova's
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/snr.html
Now in short what the theory was about
The sun moves across space (like the enterprise and kirk)
Every X amounts of years it moves through a BELT (yeah i know what a space term) of neutron stars. (a planet that went supernova ages ago, recognised by a beam of light caught by gravity) These neutron stars then bombard earth(and sun and the other 8 plantes) with DEADLY radiation.
These students found a pattern in the position of the earth and the giantic disasters that happened on earth (dinosaurs dying, climate changes etc)
Now when we get close to that belt again, we will have a big chance that major disasters will strike earth.
Maybe i explained it a bit better now.
I will see if i can find an article about it.
But i just did a search on google , upon reading some of this it is all becoming more clear again (well the discovery show at least)
on the following link ya can find some info about supernova's
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/snr.html
Now in short what the theory was about
The sun moves across space (like the enterprise and kirk)
Every X amounts of years it moves through a BELT (yeah i know what a space term) of neutron stars. (a planet that went supernova ages ago, recognised by a beam of light caught by gravity) These neutron stars then bombard earth(and sun and the other 8 plantes) with DEADLY radiation.
These students found a pattern in the position of the earth and the giantic disasters that happened on earth (dinosaurs dying, climate changes etc)
Now when we get close to that belt again, we will have a big chance that major disasters will strike earth.
Maybe i explained it a bit better now.
I will see if i can find an article about it.
Yeah, I know what you mean now.
Here's a related story.
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,651829,00.html
I think though, that it wouldn't happen so quickly as this program has suggested.. the radiation cone from an event like this would be enormous in size, and you would gradually cross the edge of it, with an increase in radiation century on century, until you were on the main axis, at which point, you would be dead !
Here's a related story.
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,651829,00.html
I think though, that it wouldn't happen so quickly as this program has suggested.. the radiation cone from an event like this would be enormous in size, and you would gradually cross the edge of it, with an increase in radiation century on century, until you were on the main axis, at which point, you would be dead !