Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Armageddon Scenarios?

  1. Oct 4, 2004 #1
    I've been coming across sites like these for quite some time : How much truth is there in the articles they represent?

    http://www.armageddononline.org

    Thoughts?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 4, 2004 #2
    Well I guess there are plenty scenarios to erase mankind and destroy the world, and the real culprit may yet be unknown.

    But there quite a likelyhood of potential disasters. I think that some super-vulcano scenario, perhaps like the http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/SiberianTraps.html [Broken]in several hundred-millions years from now, would score quite high. That is, if some pet idea of mine is right.

    On the other site of the scale, to give the Mayan prognoses of 21 December 2012 a chance, requires a lot of confidence in unfounded and unrealistic hanky panky.

    But could perhaps the Earth explode due to Global warming? :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Oct 4, 2004 #3
    Hmm, interesting story that mayan prophecy.
    Guess i found one of the basis story's of Clive Cusslers "Atlantis Discovered "
    All we miss is the " Fourth Reich " (if you've read it you know what i mean).

    Never the less, doesn't annyone think old prophecy's like the mayans can hold some clues to events going to happen? (not an apocalys per-se).
     
  5. Oct 4, 2004 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A quick glance at their four featured articles: Yellowstone, mega-tsunami, nuclear war, and asteroids, all are reasonable, but you gotta weigh the odds.

    The Mayan one, on the other hand, has no basis in reality. All that is known for sure is the date that their calendar ends (and resets). Why anyone thinks there is any significance to that is beyond me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2004
  6. Oct 4, 2004 #5
    i'm not only referring to this particular story.
    More in general.
    Do any of you guys think ancient stories hold any value in predicting future disasters?
     
  7. Oct 4, 2004 #6

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    armageddon is just a fancy name for earth changes that the religious human population has yet to experience...other then that, these earth changes have happened before the time of the human population.

    and russ...don't knock the mayans to harshly...they had a firm grip of mathematics which is quite close to the same reality we use today...
     
  8. Oct 4, 2004 #7

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No more than divining the fate of the empire based on the cracks in tortoise (?) bones when stuck with a hot poker! (or the entrails of a slain goat, or ...)
     
  9. Oct 4, 2004 #8
    What does mathematics have to do with end of the world predictions?
     
  10. Oct 4, 2004 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. None whatsoever. Not even biblical Revelations (and I'm a Christian).
    I'm not knocking them at all. The fact that they had a calendar (and it worked) is a major achievement for the time. What I'm "knocking" is the conspiracists who read-into that things that aren't there. The Mayan didn't make this prediction - some guy selling a book did.
     
  11. Oct 4, 2004 #10

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i don't know, you tell me? why did you ask this?
     
  12. Oct 4, 2004 #11
    Wasn't the term "armageddon" coined in the Bible?
     
  13. Oct 4, 2004 #12

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    hopefully most of us here know that :smile:
    i was avoiding that word altogether.
     
  14. Oct 6, 2004 #13
    The word armageddon is derived from Mount (Har in Hebrew) Megiddo, the site of the Battle of Megiddo and other battles. Armageddon in Christianity is also anticipated as the final battle between the forces of good (Jesus and his angels) and the forces of evil (Satan and his demons). It is the time of final judgement for the wicked humans of earth and the salvation for the just and good humans of earth. It is known as the final purification of the Earth's sin.

    But the way most people interpret it is the end of the world.

    I recently watched NOVA on pbs, they did the best job i've ever seen in laying out the formation of the galaxy, and showing how species are born, and ultimatly have faced extinction.

    Would most of you say the scenarios COULD (big could) happen, but aren't likely in the next few hundred years?
     
  15. Oct 6, 2004 #14

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums KillRide!

    Of the four 'featured' scenarios (mega-volcano, asteroid/comet impact, tsunami, 30,000 nukes), the second and third are related (or maybe it's the first and third), so there's really only three to consider. Of these, the last (nukes) isn't 'natural' - humans will make the decisions that lead up to it. Possibility in 'the next few hundred years'? IMHO, anyone who claims to be able to make anything but a speculative guess on that is either a fool or a knave.

    The possibility of a 'killer asteroid' (or comet) - at least of the Tunguska variety - hitting the Earth in 'the next few hundred years' is very high; how much death and destruction it does depends on where it lands; of the KT extinction kind, quite low.

    Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruptions are very likely in 'the next few hundred years'; how much death and destruction they do depends on where they are, and how much warning there is. Deccan Traps type flood volcanism? I have no idea (but Andre probably does).
     
  16. Oct 6, 2004 #15
    http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=fbasalts [Broken] is an informative page about the relation between mantle plumes and traps or flood basalt volcanism.

    Dynamic mantle plumes could theoritically be identified by local gravity anomalies and seismographic exploiration. Can't find the link right back with the current mantle plumes. There seems to be a big one underneath Africa.

    So in a few million years, we could have incredible volcanic flood basalt eruptions.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  17. Oct 6, 2004 #16
    I'd say they're more likely than that. There isn't much warning for andesitic and rhyolitic volcano explosions. Geologists can say something is going to happen, but when, is a total guess.
     
  18. Oct 7, 2004 #17

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I didn't see "viral epidemic" anywhere on that page. If we're talking about destruction of mankind in particular, I'd say that one's the most likely.
     
  19. Oct 7, 2004 #18
    What about over-population? Would that be considered an appropriate scenario? It's the most environmental threat out there.
     
  20. Dec 13, 2004 #19
    I never got a chance to thank any of you - and hats off to this forum. I read here every day ;)

    Keep up the good work.
     
  21. Dec 13, 2004 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    IIRC, based on the historical record of impacts, in principle a person has about the same chance of dying from an asteroid impact as a plane crash - the reason being that so many will die when an asteroid finally hits.

    Something else is the threat a science experiment going wrong. When we set off the first bomb, some scientists had calculated that a very small chance existed that the entire atmosphere would either ignite, or become a part of the reaction [I'm not sure of the exact claim anymore]. Anyway, with all of our tampering [which I mostly support] we might one day make a huge mistake. I have often wondered what gives anyone the right to take such risks with all of humanity... in spite of my own enthusiasm for fundamental research.

    One concern of late was that of the great, grey goo disaster! Recently we were informed that death by goo is not as likely as we thought.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040609072100.htm
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2004
  22. Dec 14, 2004 #21
    I'd say there is nearly zero chance of overpopulation being a real killer, with the one exception of bacterial and viral illnesses it can create.
     
  23. Dec 14, 2004 #22
    Actually over-population is a very good reason. It's the variables that spring up from overpopulation that are truly devastating. Over the evolution of organisms, watch what over-population does to it's surroundings and other organisms.
     
  24. Dec 14, 2004 #23
    Yes, comparing humans with bacteria and mice is a common argument for the dangers of overpopulation.

    Those comparisons are fundamentally flawed for the following reason: they assume that humans, like other animals, grow in population until recources are used up. This statement is not currently true of humans. There are places in the world with zero population growth that could very well afford to grow. This proves that, although some people may grow till recources are gone, not all do. I further argue that those populations not growing all have common societal traits.

    The "overpopulation problem" is really just another way of saying "if people were dead, we'd have no problems." Although tautologically true, it nevertheless seems to miss the point of solving problems that allow people to live and live well.
     
  25. Dec 19, 2004 #24
    no locrian. overpopulation is a very grave problem. as things stand today the planet is already overpopulated and have resulted in a general devastation of world's ecological resources. even an optimistic scenario envisages human population to peak at 12 billion by 2080 even if current population controls are rigidly enforced. but they are not being enforced today and there is scant chances of any progress in this regard in future in agrarian countries of the world. so not only will population exceed 12 billion it will mostly be concentrated in the poorer countries who would not be able to deal with it. consider the facts. population will be doubled in 80 years in poor and already densly populated countries of asia, latin america and africa. they would have to produce twice the food they are doing today. this is just not possible but there will be a desperate efforts to aceess new resources at the cost of forests, rivers and other natural treasures.i am not saying that this will happen but that there is a very good chance of this becoming a reality unless great efforts are made to manage this inevitable "bottleneck" that is just waiting to happen.even if population is controlled, a stagnant population will result is dramatic alteration in young/old ratio that will become a cause for serious strain in the economics of the world at large. to tell the truth as yet i see no way how we could get out of this "catch 22" unscathed. it is certain we will not go extinct, but human society and civilisation may be badly hit or at least permanently altered.
     
  26. Dec 19, 2004 #25
    I also think this one might be the most propable scenario.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook