Coffee Shop no. 12 - Just a Thought...

What do you think?

1. Do you think telekinesis or telekinetics are possible?

Telekinesis is entirely possible. According to astrophysicist Michio Kaku, author of the New York Times Best Seller: Physics of the Impossible, telekinesis can be synthetically induced. There are no scientific explanations though, for abilities such as levitation, teleportation, telepathy, or telekinesis in raw uncontrolled form. There are reports that some people can bend metal with the sheer power of their mind (telekinesis and telepathy combined) or cause things to rise off the ground without touching them. Most of these stories are hoaxes and physicists rarely support the possibility of someone's brainwaves having an affect on surrounding environment. Kaku explained that in order to push something off the ground, a certain amount of electrical activity equal to several hundred hertz (I do not know the exact number because the book isn't with me at the moment, but its in the 90s to 200s or higher) which should be beyond human capability to produce. But possible for a machine to create, meaning if you implant electrodes in your brain and connect them to a super computer used to emit electromagnetic pulses into your surroundings, you may be able to make something a few feet away move wherever you think it should go. Of course, that may not be what you had in mind as natural telekinesis, but it's the only known parallel to telekinesis theorized by scientists today. If people can already hook themselves up to a super computer and use their mind to control the computer cursor (much in the manner of machine to human telepathy), then I think telekinesis is possible. But should we want telekinesis? ~Severus


~Thoth

2. What do you think would happen if humans had telepathic, telekinetic, pyrokinetic, hydrokinetic, and other such abilities? How would the world be different?


I think the world could go into utter chaos if we had those abilities. In competitions and game shows contestants could cheat by telepathically consulting other people. Wars and sports would be more fierce or have more rules, as you could telekinetically move a ball, or even a player. Water and fire are powerful. Terrorists could easily drown, choke, or burn people as well as buildings and so it would be easier to destroy the world and murder people, with no actual "weapons" involved. Also, it would be much more efficient to travel, and transportation businesses would disappear (along with a lot of jobs!). Although this would be really cool and convenient, it could also lead to serious damage and bad consequences.

Although I do believe there could be bad effects to these "powers" but in your scenario it is as if everyone would suddenly got them but in reality we would slowly evolve. I think it would be for the best. If we could pick up on the mined waves of others then we would be able to since the powerful energy wave used to manipulate matter. therefor we would be able to tell if other people used it. sports would probably be giant games were everything was controlled by their minds. I also predict the ref would be connected to a machine that amplifies the perception as to tell if people were cheating. crimes would be a pain but in your example you said you could burn people but then the victim could extinguish it and it would be more even the now because in the modern day one person has a gun and the other does not. this way each person would have a "gun" there also would be the problem of babies. They would be a problem because it has been proven that the younger the person the more advanced there brain is. For example already some babies have moved objects without touching them during tantrums. If everyone could do this then babies would be very advanced and have no control. We would probably give them some kind of shot or pill that makes it less powerful. And your statement about less jobs if people could teleport that would mean they could separate then re form molecules which means they would be able to create objects with there mined. in this case we would eliminate poverty and any need of personal possessions. this would probably eliminate money all the together. at this point with no money, resources, and land war would be eliminated. we have now gotten rid of war, poverty, money, and materiel possessions. with no war we will be united under one leader or government. also this makes no reason for mugging, theft or murder. also chances are if we have evolved so much we probably wont have psychopaths. this has also eliminated all form of murders. now we have eliminated all negative parts of life. then after thousands of years of evolution we then face the negative impacts of this. we have then eliminated all need of everything there for we can not develop anything so we will simply existed for millions of years. because we can now manipulate matter we will be able to keep ourselves in perfect health and finally stop reproducing so we don;t overpopulate. we have now also eliminated most positive things in life because we have no purpose because we cant develop anything. we have know have gotten rid of all good and bad things and will never die. as i already said we will simply exists for millions of year until we use all 100% of are mind at which point we become so interconnected with are endless amount of knowledge and power we will interconnect are minds and become one sentient bean. are bodies will then start to hold are still developing mined back so we will then leave are bodies behind. the huge sentient mass of energy will then grow and engulf the entire universe. this mind will then see there is no point in existing anymore so it will either destroy itself are alter itself into a world and time will be as if it is restarted. ~Bartumes

Sports would not give you much exercise if you just sat there in the bleachers telekinetically and telepathically moving things. ~Morangue Pine

If in the very unlikely event humans develop these powers simultaneously, and if human physcology persists, than the human race and possibly the world would be annihilated. ~186000mps

If we developed these powers than most people would be sitting around their houses, moving things with their mind. eventually, nobody would get exercise and we would turn into fat lifeless beings. we would all die after a year or two. ~Thoth

It would be very dangerous for humans to develoup these characteriscts, many people would find this as an excuse not to be physicaly fit. Also terrorists could use these methods do destroy. This would more likey cause us to kill our selves rather than to help us. ~Environmentalist

~Severus

Coffee Shop no. 11 - Just a Thought...

What do you think?

1. Do you think it is possible to run the planet only on environmentally friendly resources?

I think it is possible to run the planet on only environmentally friendly resources. First, we should define environmentally friendly. For my response here, let's define "environmentally friendly" as anything that either helps the Earth, or keeps it neutral, with as little harm as possible. In other words, anything that is good, or not affecting the planet with the least harm we can. With that definition, I believe we can. Civilization has accomplished that for many thousands of years! The question is, can we do it today with all that
we have now?

...Ever since the Industrial Revolution that happened throughout the 1800 - 1900s throughout the world, technology
and science have advanced rapidly. Within the last century, major world-changing technological advances have occurred including, the internet, the computer, email, cell phone and many others. Some may even say that the last century has been the most "techie" century in human history so far! Before this, everything was on a slow steady
course, but when we hit the 1900s, technology made a huge leap.

Unfortunately, this huge rise in technology has also led to a huge rise in pollution and waste and other "earth-saddening" events. We see that electricity is now a huge source of power for us. Lights, computers, stoves, phones, refrigerators... Without electricity these days, the world would be deprived of one of, if not the, most valued energy source. The problem is, most of our electricity comes from coal and natural gases.

...coal makes up for almost 50% of our electricity generation source. With electricity dominating our lives and almost 50% of it coming from coal, we have a huge issue. First off, the power plants where electricity is produced from coal (and a variety of other sources) are huge, major contributors to the pollution we release into the air. In fact, these are some of the most major factors to our global warming problem! Also, coal is a non-renewable source. This means that once it's gone, it's gone. It takes millions of years to make coal and other fossil fuels. In conjunction with how much we use of it now and the ever increasing demand for coal, it's no wonder why our earth is so subject pollution and why we are so conscious now of "going green"!

With all these saddening events going on, we have to pose questions like whether or not we can run the earth simply on environmentally friendly resources. The answer is yes, but realistically, it's not that simple. We know society has been living well with the planet for centuries, but that was in the days when people all lived humble lives in cottages, drove in horse-drawn carriages, lit small candles, and had no factories. The age however, has changed. So have the circumstances.

If we were to say, "the old ways were good, let us live like them", then yes, we may rid ourselves of the environmental issues we have now. But ask any person of today and they will utterly refuse such an idea. "Foolishness!" they will say. No one is willing to forfeit all we have now just to "go back" and live a dark life without any of the great technology of today. To forfeit what we've accomplished all these years would be infinitely torturous! How then, could we solve such a problem? Surely there is a way out of this maze, surely we can find a way to live in harmony with the earth again. Surely we can find a way to save our beautiful green and blue Earth from the darkness of
muddy brown pollution and environmental ignorance...Any ideas? ~Pomomarine

I have an idea on how to generate Eco Friendly electricity. That idea is to harvest the earths own gravity. We already do that today on rivers, but that generation is so minimal we would need to increase the efficiency of our machines over a million times for the demand to meet the production. But i was thinking one day; why cant we have micro-generators inside a body of water (Like a small pond or even a artificial body). They would work almost the same as those river generators but instead there is a tube, on the side of the tube there is a generator attached to it. The generators tribunes (the wheel things) would be have inside and half out. The outside part will be enclosed with a box so no water flow to effect the inside.There are several generators on the side of the tube. When water flows through them they will generate electricity. How this would work is the tube with the generators would be placed in the middle of a body of water (submerged) with both ends of the tube sealed. Then we unseal the first end (top). Gravity would pull the water downward but the air inside the tube would have nowhere to go. That's when the other end of the tube comes in, we unseal that end and then the water would spin the turbines in a cycle. Of course there might be some issues with the continuing cycle but that could be fixed with some micro heats and coolers. Now what if we made thousands of these and made them extremely small (having a mass of less than one micro gram)? We could generate tons of electricity. So what happens when we fill something like a bathtub of water with these inside? We could generate quite a bit of energy. This could be a solution to our energy crisis. ~Project Z

On the topic of energy, I don't believe we can harvest energy purely out of gravity. For example dams are generators spun by the movement of water, so kinetic energy is made into electric energy, not gravity into electricity. Using just gravity alone breaks conservation of energy. How can electricity be eco friendly? Reduce the waste matter. Nuclear power has very little waste (but dangerous waste.) I would say that wind turbines as well as solar panels are the best shot at the energy crisis. ~186000 mps

Possibly, energy would NOT be a problem. But we still need oil. We need it to run machines, as a lubricant between gears, and to make plastic. Of course if we use ecofriendly energy, the amount of oil used will be dramatically cut and we will have "more". At our current level of knowledge, it would be hard, the biggest challenge is to over come plastic. (Mining on other planets/asteroids can help save some of our natural resources)...[Adding on,] we have become so dependent on these that it would be hard with our level of technology. Also NOTHING can be COMPLETLY eco-friendly making the statement impossible. All eco-friendly objects have consequences. Wind turbines kill birds, solar panels need to to manufactured and take ground space, under water turbines kill fish, nuclear energy has deadly byproducts, cloud seeding can mess up weather patterns, and so on. We use these technologies because the benefits are GREATER that the risks, but wildlife and the global ecosystem is still disrupted.~Environmentalist

I don't think it is possible to run the planet only on environment friendly resources because if you make energy there are side effects so wouldn't the "most" eco-friendly thing to do is not to use energy? Of course I'm not sure that is entirely possible considering the wy we do things now. ~ZobyBlueberry

Well, I think that eco-friendly energy is perfectly possible, even at today's level of technology. Solar panels use the energy of the sun and converts it into electricity. Pretty soon electric cars will outsource gasoline and diesel cars. There wont be any emissions left. Solar panels are probably the best option, as they require little space and are effective at generating electricity. ~186000 mps

When I was talking about my underwater turbines i mean they are very very tiny and are not in a body of water that contain large animals (such as fish). I was thinking that we could put them in artificial bodies of water. ~ProjectZ

The whole point of underwater turbines is to produce mass amounts of energy. To do this they would need to be large and to make them spin they need to come into contact with ocean currents, artificial will just take more energy. Also at our level of technology and for convenience, they would be easier and better to build in shallow waters. I am a green freak, but all technology has a consequence in the environment, we have to face it. Even a bike has a consequence, it needs to be manufactured, needs a garage or shed, it drives over ants. all things can harm our environment, but it is still best to go green. But the olny way to be completly green is if we never even lived on planet Earth. -Environmentalist

My point isn't to harvest ocean current energy, my point is to harvest gravity. Bigger doesn't mean more energy, well it dose but not at a huge scale. Lets say we have one huge turbine that is the size of the earth. Now lets imagine earth filled up with turbines that have 1 cubic foot of capacity. Which one generates more electricity? The answer should be obvious. Now lets think one turbine the volume of one cubic foot. Now lets imagine millions of turbines that also fit into one cubic foot. Yet again the scenario with many small turbines generates more electricity. ~Project Z

~Bartumes

2. Do you think it is possible to create a video game so advanced you will be in it?

...my answer is "no", or [maybe] we are already in one...According to many astrophysicists, we may be living inside a high tech computer simulation and therefore the "being" at the controls of the computer or the "programmer" as you may call it, is actually controlling everything which happens on Earth and in the universe, which is actually part of one master computer simulation.The scientists say that subatomic particles and matter act almost as pixels in our three dimensional simulation and that we, like the computerized characters in a Sims viedo game are made up of millions of these sub-sub-atomic "pixels". The mere idea that we are in a computer simulation created by a seemingly omniscient being is mind blowing to say the least and many people dismiss the theory as soon as they learn of it because it defies most of the rules of physics and enters the realm of cybernetic intelligence. If we are truly living inside a simulation, that would mean that we are cybernetic beings that have come to be aware of our own existence.

Other scientists believe that the being at the 'controls" of the universe may be a future version of ourselves meaning a highly evolved human from the future trying to rebuild humanity before it collapses unto itself ( a tie in to an apocalypse in an alternate future, obviously). I find that far too improbable. Time travel is a nearly impossible feat because it defies the laws of physics, so there is no way an advanced human from the future can come to create a life like simulation of the past which is aware of itself. Therefore, I don't believe that it will ever be possible for humans to create a simulation which they can "be in" or permanently stamp themselves into as a cybernetic being. ~Severus

I believe that it is possible to create a video game so realistic that we are in it. If you were to have a device that can interpret the brain's electrical impulses of the 6 basic senses (touch, hearing, smell, sight, taste, and balance) then replace them with different brain frequencies but still give you the element of control, it would be possible. And in response to the theory that we already are in one, I looked it up and that is actually just a metaphor to show how everything is interconnected by a force like a video game. Although it is possible, it would take a tragic toll on us and the planet. It would be a drug in all senses of the word. Not something that you inject or eat a swallow but it would be highly addictive because you would be able to simply go into go into a perfect world. People would spend all there time in it and then soon enough it would be multi-player and everyone would share one huge simulation. This would be a perfect example of the matrix. Also this happened in one of the "Bobby Pendragon" series. The only way to counter act this addiction would be to add a negative factor such as a minor electric shock but then [some time] after the creator died the patent would wear off [from] power and [a] money hungry person would sell it without the negative influence and it would become like the movie "Surrogates". ~Bartumes

Bartumes, it wasn't only a metaphor. If you watch several episodes of " Into the Wormhole" they discuss with many astrophysicists about how the universe may actually be one giant simulation. Although I do not agree with the theory. ~Severus

True, the world may be a giant simulation. Maybe there are giant aliens up there who made us to observe our behavior, or maybe our world is truly like the matrix. But according to quantum theory anything is possible. Maybe we are all truly giant purple hippos with bat wings that spit rainbows and we cant see them. Because of this I do not think it is fair to just say it is possible because anything is really possible and if the world existed forever everything would happen at least once. ~Bartumes

I do believe its possible to create such a program. What we need to do is be able to directly send electric currents to the brain. We also need to block all natural electric currents to the brain.Now its easy, we can easily send signals to the brain indicating sight, feeling, smell, and hearing. Its easy to make it,but the next thing is how secure it is. If its a game like Halo then I'm fine. But when use the internet for connection i will want to play that less because what if the internet fails while your playing that is a huge problem. Normally if your using the internet on something like Xbox Live and it fails your character gets terminated. That means that you get terminated and you feel like you've just died. If your mind thinks that your dead then it will stop sending signals to your heart. Then you will really die in really life. No company would want their customers to die from their video game. But then comes what the game is becoming. Lets say you have an MMORPG and turn it into where you are in the game. Doesn't that virtual reality to you? Lets say we make a SIMS game into a MMORPG. Then lets say lets make that game so that you are in the game world. First off that would get "laggy" and second of all that would be a virtual reality. That would be a revolution.We could connect people from China to the US and have them talk face to face without moving them from their countries. But that could be VERY VERY dangerous. Lets say someone used this agansit the population by hooking everyone up to it. Then that person destroys the internet? He would of killed every person that was hooked up.~ProjectZ

It's possible, but a waste of our time. This would be great for entertainment purposes, but once again it could be dangerous. Also there are many hackers, this time they could hack into your brain! It would be more practical if NASA used this idea to train astronauts for space.~Environmentalist

I agree with your views, Environmentalist. The video game would be an utter waste of time. The bigger hazards being "brain hacking" and the control of other people as "mind slaves". ~Pomomarine

~Bartumes

Coffee Shop no. 10 - Just a Thought... (Part II)

3. Do you think the apocalypse is nearing? If yes or no, why?

What do you think?

...There is no way to be absolutely sure. According to the Bible, the antichrist will return and enslave humanity, and bring the human civilization to the point of collapse. The world during World War 2 thought for sure that Adolf Hitler was the antichrist (he certainly acted like one) and many predictions surfaced that the world was going to end when he took over Europe and eventually most of the globe. But Hitler didn't manage to do that, and all...the predictions were proven false. But concerning the 2012 apocalypse theory, the world will end in "fire". Many people relate this to another war, "World War Three" (spurred by a massive terrorist attack by the Taliban), which is a lot more likely than the second theory, which is that a super massive black hole (that scientists call ULX) will envelop our solar system and end all life on Earth. Another theory which is a little less likely than World War Three and a lot more probable than destruction by ULX is Yellowstone volcano erupting. Yellowstone is one of the largest volcanoes on the planet, and its underground magma chambers span across several states including North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Washington state. If it actually erupts...electrical lines will go out, electrical relay between cities may be permanently disabled, and many systems such down, including electricity. According to some...Mount Vesuvius on the other side of the world will erupt [as well] and destroy other surrounding cities...These eruptions will prove equally destructive as a terrorist attack if they happen to occur. Also, rising sea levels (the accumulating results of global warming) will prove incredibly devastating and possibly apocalyptic. Venice, New York, and Shanghai will be [some] of the first cities destoyed if there was a drastic increase in sea level during a tidal wave or flash flood caused by an earthquake. With the loss of major cities in flash floods and tsunamis the world will definitely be thrown into disarray. But there is no way to predict the exact year such events will happen. It may be thirty, forty, or even fifty years before the world will begin to have catastrophic weather events. The 2012 apocalypse, in my opinion, just doesn't have enough proof... ~Severus

...I am completely against the 2012 theory, but I do belive that the apocalypse is nearing. Yellowstone is a big threat to man kind, as it is over due to blow its top. A magnetar burst can also disrupt our lives as it would disable all electrical devices or any thing where electicity runs. But many believe that there [are/were three anti-christ]s, first Napolean, then Hitler, and lastly.. Obama? Well that is if Nostradamus was right...But there is nothing to worry about. All the Christians will resurrect into Heaven. [Then,] America, EU, China, and Russia will got to war in Israel, and all die and fill a valley with blood and at the very last second, Jesus will come down to Earth with a sword and a scroll with God's word. It will be so powerful evil will die...[Then there will be] no death, tears, and evil...Yellowstone [may also] affect the whole word, and lay inches of ash all the way to Maine, US. [It will then] put the world into a catostrofic deep freeze. -Environmentalist

Believe it or not I am not against the 2012 theory. Yes it seems ridiculous but there is scientific backup to this theory. Sunspot cycles occur every 11 years, the last one in 2001. The next is due in 2012. You all may be wondering who cares about sunspot cycles? Well scientists have noticed a "solar silence" in the sunspot occurrence. Since sunspot cycles have almost always occurred every 11 years scientist believe that a massive solar eruption is due in 2012. Yes it is true that sunspot cycles are very hard to predict, but that doesn't disprove a thing about the apocalypse. If its not in 2012 it'll come soon maybe 2011 or 2013. ~Project Z

Well, the 2012 theory is largely based simply on the fact that the Mayan Long Count Calendar ended in that year, and that the Mayan Long Count Calendar has proved to be largely accurate. The thinking is, "its been accurate all these centuries, perhaps it will accurately tell the end of the earth." However, the "evidence" put forth is mostly from theorists who try to conjure up relevant facts to support their theory. It is not because we see "evidence" that the 2012 theory has emerged. It is because the 2012 theory has come up, and people in support of it are conjuring "evidence" to support their views.

Also, I have an major objection to the 2012 theory. This theory would infer that we know when the world will end. Many conjecture it to be on December 21, 2012. This, however, is a huge mistake. It is clearly stated in many historical texts, for example in the Bible it states "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). Thus, I present forth my oppositions to the 2012 theory. ~Pomomarine

The Mayan apocalypse theory actually states that " There will be a new beginning.", that doesn't necessarily mean that the world will "end", it simply means that something else (whatever that something is) will begin. 2012 according to the Mayans, may just mean some sort of "big change", not the apocalypse. ~Severus

[The] Mayans had a cycle. [Changes?] occured at a certain pattern. Supposedly this will be the "last" [change?] to the end of the world. Of course i don't believe [in] Mayan predictions. But I do believe that something may devastate us, maybe not exactly 2012, maybe 2011 or 2013...[Also,] our magnetic poles are scheduled to switch, north goes to south and south to north. All will happen is our compases will point the wrong way. But for the poles to change, a lot of energy is needed and before this happens, the poles will be springing up all over the globe! I also believe that this may be causing the recent increased amount of earthquakes. For the poles to change, a large amount of energy needs to be created in the earth's core causing eventually for the convection currents to spin faster and the plates to "bump" into each other more often. It probably wont be the apocalypse in 2012, but something will happen -Environmentalist

I agree with you, the poles are switching. But is that really something we need to worry about? Yes magnetic north pole is shifting quite a bit every year. Although this is true it will take a long time (human terms) for them to switch. But in geologic time the switch is almost instant. This will prove a problem in the future but the switch is centuries into the future, we would of gotten colonized many other planets by then. ~Project Z

I think the pole switch will affect weather patterns, but also the ozone hole in the north pole will be more prone to solar storms during the "switch", and that could pose a real threat because radiation will flow past the weakening exosphere and ionosphere of the Earth, thus affecting the entire planet's climate. If the poles were to switch, it would be incredibly devastating. ~Severus

I agree with [Severus'] original statement--that the Mayan apocalypse theory actually states that "There will be a new beginning" and not actually an apocalyptic event. Perhaps some natural events will happen to initiate this "new beginning", but almost certainly is NOT the apocalypse. Many of you brought up the concept of a geomagnetic reversal, where the poles will switch places and cause a number of devastating and apocalyptic events. I do have some objections to these theories...The first and foremost is that how do we know the a geomagnetic reversal is "scheduled to happen"? First of all, geomagnetic reversals are not on a schedule. Some conspirators state that sudden geomagnetic reversals are natural events to Earth and occur with "clock-like regularity" and one is scheduled to come in 2012. This statement can be proved to be proved...false [with the below] chart showing geomagnetic polarity during the late Cenozoic area. The dark areas show when the polarity matched the current conditions, the white shows when the poles were reversed.



As we can clearly see from the visual, the periods of reversal are absolutely NOT regular or scheduled. They reveal no evidence of any pattern from which we can draw the conclusion that we are "due" for another reversal in 2012. The second point I have to object on is that the "doomsday reversal" will cause worldwide destruction, and is supported by paleo-magnetic evidence. First off, the "evidence" spoken of here is almost always tiny clues that are of almost no relation to the world's end. How do they become "evidence" for doomsday then? What happens is conspirators take the clues and put them all together along with other things they claim to have "deciphered" from ancient sources, then mix it all up with a bunch of speculations with no backing whatsoever, and present it and call it evidence. At first, all of it sounds VERY convincing. In fact, most people you tell this to on the street will probably nod their heads miserably and believe every single word you say...It would be a huge mistake to call this "evidence". It is simply many sources put together, "deciphered" and mixed with the author's bias. Clearly, this is not evidence.

Second, conspirators theorize that a geomagnetic reversal will cause the world to end and civilization and human life as we know it will be annihilated. Number one, who would believe that the entire human race will be roasted alive by solar winds, flares, and storms...[who says] that we'll be wiped out by galactical alignment or blackhole coincidences? Let's see why total planetary annhilation of the human race is a thought to be thrown out the window through scientific and historic terms...As seen in the previous visual, geomagnetic reversals have occured numerous times throughout the ages. Now, look at us today. Has the Earth disappeared and been destroyed after so many geomagnetic reversals? Absolutely not! We are all alive and well and the Earth has clearly survived through many many geomagnetic reversals already. Why would one speculated to occur in 2012 be anything to worry about?

Also, early species including the supposed "ancestor" of the human species...Homo erectus survived a geomagnetic reversal apparently at ease. Not to mention, other early species survived numerous ice ages, geomagnetic reversals and other large scale global events.

With all the above being said, I would have to conclude that 2012 geomagnetic reversal doomsday is definitely unlikely. [Even if it did,] a geomagnetic reversal will not cause the end of the world and the human race. ~Pomomarine

Sources:

http://survive2012.com/index.php/geryl-pole-shift.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/10/03/2012-no-geomagnetic-reversal/
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic.svg/285px-Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic.svg.png

I think the 2012 "disaster" will not happen. People have based their ideas on the Mayan Long Count calender. Does it really say that a disaster will happen? No. Plus, just because it is usually a very "correct" calender doesn't mean that it is correct all the time. It was created by humans and we make mistakes. ~ZobyBlueberry

I disagree...This may seem strange to you, but many scientists today believe that a magnetic polar switch would be catastrophic. There is a direct relationship between water and magnetism. So when enormous changes occur in the magnetic fields, the water would move as well. I'm not talking about a few kilometers, I'm talking hundreds or possibly thousands of kilometers further inland or the opposite. This is a seriously major problem. The second major problem is that when magnetic poles switch the iron within the insides of the earth will change as well. This is not good at all. This means that hot spots would move. Tectonic plates would be disrupted. Let me ask you this: how would the modern world respond to that? The third point; today the magnetic fields of earth provide a shelter form solar radiation. If the poles where to all of a sudden switch that means for a while solar radiation would be more concentrated with ultra-violet light. This wouldn't be very bad, but still an increase of just 10% of the radiation levels in the sun's rays would do heavy damage. Also, many animals today have a magnetic sense so when a enormous switch occurred in the magnetic field the animals would face a problem too. The only reason Homo erectus survived the switch was because they didn't build electromagnetic generators. They didn't build big cities with ports. They didn't have compasses. They didn't do all those stuff that will be affected by the magnetic fields. ~Project Z

A new virus may be another very real factor which may lead to the fall of the human race. Many great civilizations which seemed infallible such as the Roman Empire and 16th Century England were devastated (and in the case of the Romans, completely annihilated) by plague. The Black Death ruined England's infrastructure and worsened political feuds, throwing the country into a century long "Dark Age". In conclusion, I'd like to state that the apocalypse in my opinion will not be the result of one major catastrophic change, but several catastrophes occurring at once (plague, climate change, and pole switch being a few of the inevitable doomsday factors). ~Severus

I am assuming that by apocalypse you mean end of world. Of course the world will end. 6 billion years until the sun expands to a red giant, then a supernova occurs even later than that. But on a more short term scale, the 2012 will probably not happen. If it does, than it is of coincidence. Anywho, natural disasters will most likely not destroy the human species. Anywho, Nuclear Holocaust.... I don't think will happen, as more countries are uniting. A plague would kill many but be easily countered. There will always be people living unless something such as a meteor impacts earth; even so such event is unlikely.

A magnetic pole reversal is a very interesting concept. As I read, animals that use magnetic field to direct their migration would die likely. But I believe that this is of no concern. A solar cycle has been known to wipe out sattelites and communications. I not do think that Dec 21 2012 is the day, though, as it is four days before Christmas. (This is an abstract religious fact that nothing to end human happens within Dec. I can use religion to defend my arguments, so I am going to make a religion up...... or I could stick with Dhruvism.) I am still open to have my brain changed on this subject. ~186000mps

NOTE: Dhruvism is a made-up religion. It was made as a joke by "Dhruv", a friend of 186000 mps.

~Environmentalist

Coffee Shop no. 10 - Just a thought... (Part I)

What do you think?

1. Can anything disappear, or vanish without a trace?

Can anything disappear entirely? No. especially not if it is supposed to rematerialize back into its visible form again. For example, in Star Trek, when an ensign or red coat (official in the high command) needs to transport from a location on a planet, the star ship " beams them up" (also known as disintegrating the person who's being transported to the molecular level in order to make transportation at the speed of light more manageable and safe. The person rematerializes onto the star ship, molecules back in place, as if nothing had happened. Even though the person appeared invisible during the "beaming up" process, he or she didn't entirely disappear, because his or her molecules were still existent during transportation. Therefore, I don't believe that something can completely disappear (and in the context of real science, if something is sucked into a black hole, that something will simply shrink to a subatomic level, but would never entirely disappear.) ~KW

[Well, the] Law of Conservation states that matter cannot be destroyed. However, matter may be turned into energy. In fact, as energy goes up, so does mass, as Einsteins equation states. ( e=mc^2) In recent string theory, there are sub-atomic particles that may pop in and out of existence but are not trackable. On the note of teleportation, the only way that I know it could work would be if both sets of atoms have identical information (velocity, axis spin) but at different positions. ~186000mps

(NOTE: Teleportation was discussed earlier in Coffee Shop no. 4)

I believe that an object can just disappear. The solution is quite easy just use anti-matter and blow it up. The matter would no longer exist, it would just turn into pure energy. You may think that this leaves a trace but if the entire universe were to all of a sudden turn into energy, would it cease to exist? I think so. You see, energy cannot be detected, only energy in heat form can. But when energy comes in contact with matter, it should turn into heat energy. But if we turn the entire universe into energy there will be no matter to absorb it up. ~Project Z

Though I highly support Project Z's views, I will have to go with the opinion that an object cannot simply "vanish without a trace". As Project Z stated, when antimatter collides with matter, they are both annihilated leaving only energy. Energy is considered a "trace". Though Project Z stated that energy cannot be detected and is thus not considered a "trace", it is undeniable that it is still there. When something isn't detectable, it means just that, not that it doesn't exist. What I must say is that an object can "vanish" as stated earlier using antimatter, but not without a trace. ~Pomomarine

If energy is a trace then my idea wouldn't work. ~Project Z

Yes...and if energy is not considered a trace because it is..."undetectable", my objections are no longer valid. :) ~Pomomarine

~ZobyBlueberry

2. How do you think languages came to be?

Well, where languages come from? [Check out this video] from BrainPop...[It is on etymology and the origins of words. http://www.brainpop.com/english/grammar/etymology/

~Pomomarine

I've found more! In the book of Genesis, it states "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there." (Genesis 11:1-2). The story tells of how the people wanted to build a city with a tower reaching to the heavens and "make a name for [themselves]".

"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.' So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:5-9) ~Pomomarine

~Morangue Pine