Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

How do you think the world will end?

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:23 am

Blackhole, it will happen in 2 billion years.

Post Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:34 am

can we get a lock please? this thread was a year dead.

Post Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:36 am

I don't remember it the first time round though. I think its quayt interesting.

Post Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:16 pm

I think that somebody will leave a sausage out in the sunlight, go into stasis for 3 million years. when the person comes out, they will kill themselves realising that the mould produced engulfed the entire planet killing everyone.

Post Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:25 pm

As long as the posts stays on topic, there is no reason to lock the thread, grave-digging is only against the rules if the new post is senseless and do not contribute, this is not the case here, so the thread stays open.


As to how the world will end....hmm...

Post Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:35 pm

Three words: The sun esploding. Seriously, what other realistic way is there for the "world" to end. Granted, we should have moved on to other planets by then but still... it'll be the definite End of the World as we Know It (and I feel fine).

Also, this is a really old thread. I still had problems with my old CS CD, played Desert Combat and had my "Warning: Prosecutors will be violated" siggy. I feel old now.

Post Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:43 pm

Depends on what "end" you want to talk about doesn't it?

The end of humanity?
The end of Earth as a biosphere?
The end of the solar system?
The end of the Milky Way?

Post Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:27 pm

is there a distinction between the physical end of the world and, say, a collapse in civilsation? personally I think that wiping ourselves out with disease or climate change or a worldwide economic collapse is more likely than the actual destruction of the planet.

Post Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:25 pm

If anyone has been to Sam Hughes' website, he has a few suggestions... yes, natural phenomena

1. Total existence failure
- You will need: nothing
- Method: No method. Simply sit back and twiddle your thumbs as, completely by chance, all 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms making up the planet Earth suddenly, simultaneously and spontaneously cease to exist. Note: the odds against this actually ever occuring are considerably greater than a googolplex (10^10^100) to one. Failing this, some kind of arcane (read: scientifically laughable) probability-manipulation device may be employed.
- Current feasibility rating: 0/10. Even if you look at the significantly greater probability of the Earth randomly rearranging itself into separate two planets, this is utter, utter rubbish.

2. Whipped by a cosmic string
- You will need: a cosmic string and a whole lotta luck
- Method: Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional defects in spacetime, left over from earlier phases of the universe, somewhat like cracks in ice. They are potentially universe-spanning objects, thinner than a proton but with unimaginable density - one Earth mass per 1600m of length! All you need to do is get a cosmic string near Earth, and it'll be torn apart, shredded, and sucked in. Probably the entire rest of the solar system would be too.
- Earth's final resting place: String.
- Feasibility rating: 1/10. Mind-bogglingly unlikely. Even if cosmic strings do exist, which they may not, there are probably only about ten of them left in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And they can't be steered, unless you have godlike powers, in which case you might as well chuck into the Earth in the Sun and have done with it, so you're relying entirely on luck. This. Will. Never. Happen.
- Source: this method suggested by Dan Winston.

3. Written off in the backlash from a stellar collision
- You will need: another star. White dwarf is good, but we're not fussy.
- Method: Crash your star into the Sun. The interactions between the two stars in this very violent stellar event will cause more fusion to occur inside the Sun than normally does in 100,000,000 years. The result is not unlike a supernova explosion, though slower - a staggering amount of matter and energy is released outwards, burning the Earth to a crisp and firing it into interstellar space at best, completely incinerating it at worst.
- Earth's final resting place: burnt pieces.
- Feasibility rating: 4/10. This is listed under natural methods because there is absolutely no way you can move a star. Well, there are ways and means, but if you can move a star, why not move the Earth into that star? And the chances of this happening - even considering that in two billion years' time the Milky Way is going to collide with Andromeda - are very, very slim. Calculations suggest that the number of actual stellar collisions that are likely to occur in that exchange will be SIX. Six chances in about a hundred billion. Hmm. That's actually pretty high for this list. Make it 5/10.
- Source: This method suggested by Eric Thompson.

4. Swallowed up as the Sun enters red giant stage
- You will need: patience
- Method: Simply wait for roughly 5,000,000,000 years. During its natural progress along the Main Sequence, the Sun will exhaust its initial reserves of hydrogen fuel and expand into a red giant star - swallowing up Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in the process.
- Earth's final resting place: Boiling red iron in the heart of the Sun.
- Feasibility rating: 8/10. The problem here is that current scientific theories predict the Earth will probably survive. The increasing solar wind combined with the Sun's decreasing mass will result in the Earth gradually moving out to a wider, cooler, safer orbit.
- Earliest feasible completion date: AD 5,000,000,000

5. Crunched
- You will need: considerably more patience
- Method: Our universe is rapidly expanding in all directions. It will likely continue to do so for a very, very long time. After that time, if the density of matter in the universe is greater than a certain critical value, the universe will slow to a stop due to mutual gravitational attraction, and collapse back together again, in a reversal of the Big Bang called the Big Crunch. Conditions during the Big Crunch will be similar to those during the Big Bang: mind-boggling heat, matter ripped to subatomic particles, fundamental forces such as gravitation and electromagnetism merging back together, that sort of thing. Yes, Earth would be destroyed. So would the rest of the universe. A tiny sphere of iron stands little chance against conditions like that.
- Earth's final resting place: Quark-gluon plasma? Pure energy? Part of the next universe? Honestly, I don't know. But it won't be a planet anymore.
- Feasibility rating: 8/10. Plausible. Assumes that the Big Crunch will actually occur at all, which is currently in question.
- Earliest feasible completion date: AD 42,000,000,000, give or take
- Source: Shields and Nick Snell both suggested this method.

6. Ripped asunder
- You will need: about half as much patience
- Method: Recent experimental results seem to show that the expansion of the universe is not slowing as one might imagine it would. In fact, the expansion is accelerating. It's a bit early to say with confidence why this is happening, though phrases like "dark matter" and "phantom energy" pop up pretty frequently, but anyway, it's conjectured that if the ratio w of dark energy pressure to dark energy density in the universe is negative enough (buh?), then the universe would expand, accelerating in its expansion until it was ripped apart at the seams. To quote Wikipedia's entry: "First the galaxies would be separated from each other, then gravity would be too weak to hold individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, solar systems will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will come apart, and atoms will be destroyed a fraction of a second before the end of time." Cool, eh?
- Earth's final resting place: HAH! If I knew that, I wouldn't need aftershave.
- Feasibility rating: 10/10. Likely. Assumes the Big Rip theory is correct, which it probably is, but might not be.
- Earliest feasible completion date: AD 20,000,000,000, assuming w = -3/2 (could vary)
- Source: a theory proposed by Robert R. Caldwell, Marc Kamionkowski, and Nevin N. Weinberg in February 2003. Read it here (PDF warning! Also, dense, difficult physics!). Brought to my attention by Jonah Safar and nanite.

7. Decayed
- You will need: all-surpassing patience
- Method: If the Big Crunch doesn't happen, and the Big Rip doesn't happen either, then we come back to the third option: the Big Chill. For this, the universe will just expand, forever. The laws of thermodynamics take over. Every galaxy becomes isolated from its neighbours. All the stars burn out. Everything gets colder until it's all the same temperature. And after that, nothing ever changes in the universe. For eternity.

A lot can happen in an eternity. Protons, for example, while incredibly stable, are believed to eventually decay like any other particle. So simply wait for a period of time of the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, and roughly half of the constituent particles of Earth will have decayed into positrons and pions. If that's still too much like a planet for you, you could wait for another 10^36 years, leaving only a quarter of the original Earth. Or wait even longer. Eventually there will be as little of Earth left as you wish.
- Earth's final resting place: Miscellaneous positrons and gamma radiation (pions decay almost instantly into gamma ray photons) scattered thinly across the entire universe.
- Comments: It's interesting to compare this method with the one right at the top (total existence failure). What we are essentially doing here is almost exactly the same thing, only instead of expecting every particle to disappear at once, we are waiting patiently for a significant proportion of them to disappear, one at a time, over the course of an unimaginable period of time. Essentially we've come full circle. The scientific theories involved are the same, it's just the time scale being considered which changes the feasibility rating from "astoundingly improbable" to:
- Feasibility rating: 9/10. If all else fails, this one would be essentially unstoppable...
- Earliest feasible completion date: AD 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
- Source: This method suggested by Joseph Verock

That should keep you lot busy for a while

EDIT: Wow, that font is somewhat small
EDIT 2: Damn thing can't handle indices
EDIT 3: Poor Taw, I'll get rid of the quotes
EDIT 4: Added links from original article

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 12/17/2005 3:26:09 PM

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 12/17/2005 3:27:15 PM

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 12/19/2005 3:18:00 AM

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 12/19/2005 3:21:58 AM

Post Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:35 pm

fascinating TET; an interactive journey into the microscopic. I had to use a magnifying glass to read that! just because you're talking about sub-atomic particles doesn't mean you have to write with a font the size of a proton.....

it was jolly interesting though. You are a clever fellow!

Post Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:17 am

Better?

I agree it does hurt your eyes

Post Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:56 am

much better thank you, comrade

Return to Off Topic