|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:28 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:41 am
|
|
|
|
By "universal" apocalypse do you mean as in "civilization ends" or "all people die" or "the world is destroyed" or "the universe ceases to exist"? The first three could have many causes, especially if we aren't careful and do stupid things, but the last one, I don't know if that is even possible. Is there anything that definitely destroys matter and energy, not just converting it into another form or relocating it? I know black holes will be the first thing mentioned probably, but if that is going to be brought up, I'd like to see a good, plain English description of basically how that works and if it is sure to exist by now. Especially I'd like to hear about if the related "white hole" idea is proven or disproved now too, because if black holes existed and white holes did too, then white holes could just be spitting out the same stuff elsewhere and not really destroying anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:59 am
|
|
|
|
bluecherry By "universal" apocalypse do you mean as in "civilization ends" or "all people die" or "the world is destroyed" or "the universe ceases to exist"? The first three could have many causes, especially if we aren't careful and do stupid things, but the last one, I don't know if that is even possible. Is there anything that definitely destroys matter and energy, not just converting it into another form or relocating it? I know black holes will be the first thing mentioned probably, but if that is going to be brought up, I'd like to see a good, plain English description of basically how that works and if it is sure to exist by now. Especially I'd like to hear about if the related "white hole" idea is proven or disproved now too, because if black holes existed and white holes did too, then white holes could just be spitting out the same stuff elsewhere and not really destroying anything. I agree, you need to have a better definition. to say something more... useful: I don't think it would be wise to get into the extremely complex field of theoretical physics just to hold up a single example of true destruction, which isn't even proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:53 pm
|
Profitable Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:02 am
|
|
|
|
Actually, funny thing, Apocalypse doesn't mean end of, or atleast, it's origin is completely different. In the original language, greek that is, it meant the end of one thing and the birth of another. So, it can also be related to the fated Mayan end of the world actually is the end of one cycle. In the Mayan culture, we are the fifth sun, or fifth attempt at human species. Each attempt was destroyed. So basically, a universal apocalypse wouldn't completely mean the end of a universe, but the death of one so that another could be born. And as our beloved scientist have pointed out to us, atoms cannot be destroyed, but recycled. So, in a way, a universal apocalypse would be recycling our universe and forming something new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:10 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|