On the basis of the calculations performed on the basis of the PFO-CFO Theory, we arrived at the conclusion that all widely-discussed mass extinctions were caused by quite definite solar events. There were no principal changes in nature after the series of the past extinctions, and, thus, it can be expected that the events that occurred multiply in the past, will occur hereafter. Do you think that people should prepare the ways for minimization of possible future harmful effects of solar phenomena?
Kenneth,
First, this sentence was written by Marpha Telepova-Texier, and I only cited it.
Second, if we would discuss the «physical law» term philosophic definition, we would go too far aside from the question formulated by me. You try again to shunt from discussion of socially important problem of advance protection against the conditions harmful for the Earth's flora and fauna.
Meanwhile, if some natural phenomenon repeated multiply on the Earth in the past, it will repeat in future because no principal natural changes occurred either on the Earth or in the Solar System. You can regard or not regard this statement as a physical law, but you are scarcely capable of disproving this statement, and, thus, it should receive the attention it deserves.
I think its good for the diversity of the species, specially on the level of the genetic structures
I think the greatest risk to biodiversity is much closer to home, at least in the near future. Most of the natural disaster scenarios will probably happen at some point in the next billion years or so (asteroid, solar flare, nova, earthquake, volcano). Of these, we might be able to deal with an asteroid if it is small enough and we detect it early enough.
Well I am assuming that at abundance=0, diversity also equals zero. Since the event would destroy X% of all life, diversity would be affected.
Solar flares are mostly of short duration (a few minutes), but rare events can last longer (an hour or two).
http://www.stce.be/news/332/welcome.html
The Carrington event is the largest recorded solar flare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
What happens if we encounter a solar flare a thousand times stronger?
Our sun might not be the only risk. A gamma ray burst might also be a problem. https://www.livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html.
With current technology we do not have a means of escape. However, science fiction has a way of becoming fact. The communicators in Star Trek seemed wild at the time, now everyone has a cell phone. However, the critical technologies still seem a bit far away.
If nothing else, we need a better source of power. Fusion, or antimatter, or maybe something else. We also need more reliable machines. Can we build a computer or a robot that will function for 600 years without maintenance? Alternatively, we need self-repairing mechanical systems and highly efficient recycling.
Basically yes. Like all disaster scenarios, if it is bad enough there is nothing we can do. It would be better to concentrate on the things we can control. Population growth, environmental pollution, that sort of thing.
At best this is like hurricane or earthquake building codes. However, all of these are in response to a disaster rather than in anticipation of what might happen. As we are seeing in Florida, if bad storms are not frequent enough building codes are relaxed because it is "expensive."
Solar flares have no repercussions on Earth. They are a local phenomena on the Sun. You may be referencing Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs). In general a direct hit from a CME is pretty harmless. The magnetic field of Earth protects us from harmful radiation. However, in conjunction with another phenomenon it could be devastating. When the magnetic poles switch the magnetic field of Earth is off allowing harmful radiation to reach the surface. A direct hit from a CME would wipe out most if not all surface life. A true doomsday scenario. Fortunately the chances of that happening are almost zero.
Dear Guillermo,
Thank you for your interest.
I address you to the presentation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future ; it is a plenary lecture. And https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318115981_Species_mass_extinctions_and_forerunning_atmospheric_phenomena_explanation_of_the_past_and_prediction_of_the_future_in_the_context_of_the_PFO-CFO_Theory_of_Solar_System_Formation_and_Transformation contains other references.
Dear May,
I can't quite make out your answer. Do you welcome death to the glory of life?
Regards.
Dear Timothy,
Thank you for your opinion.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict what will happen earlier and what will happen later. Neither solar freaks nor human foolishness are predictable. Solar flares are not within human power and are unpredictable, but, apparently, it is possible and, maybe, necessary to take measures for decreasing their potential harmful effect if to think in advance and not hope on the off chance. People are capable of creating an underground civilization and technology for production of nutrition from minerals. Evidently, chemistry is capable of doing the work of vegetables, and engineering is capable of constructing earthscapers instead of skyscrapers. We showed that thermodynamics allows production of food from hydrocarbons, niters, and phosphates, and it is quite possible that people can learn to do this for one century.
If people learn to make wholesome food from minerals, this will help to solve the problem of population growth. The processes that are thermodynamically possible can be realized through finding the corresponding conditions.
The problem with population growth is not just food. It is living space and waste. I am assuming that we would not like Earth if 99.9% of existing species were extinct. We could build vast underground or underwater cities to get space, and that should be no more hazardous than something like a moon base or Mars base. I am not sure what a magnitude 7 earthquake would do to an underground city, but it is probably not pleasant.
Artificial food should be possible. However, if people hate GMO food, I don't see artificial food as a good alternative. I will not eat an orange that was genetically modified, but if you grew an orange in a vat using cell cultures that is good? One could argue that vitamin pills and fiber pills are the food of the future and they are entirely artificial.
In Russia, one says: "It is better to be healthy but rich, than poor but sick." I write about the conditions when it is necessary to think about the way for survival of humanity. It is necessary to understand why and under what conditions mammoths or dinosaurs or many other species became extinct and to be ready in proper time for approaching similar conditions. Sciences about natural phenomena have three main goals: preserve, use, and predict.
Dear Timothy,
Do not flatter yourself with the Earth's magnetic field protective properties. It is capable of shadowing weak fields only. The magnetic fields of powerful protuberances are capable of "eating" them. This term was, for example, used by the NASA's experts in the last September when describing the series of those solar protuberances.
Kenneth,
To be going on with, read, please, the presentation of our plenary lecture by the address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future .
Don’t be lazy!
I know you like imaginations. I, contrariwise, proceed from the realities. This is the distinctive feature of our PFO-CFO Theory.
With a flashlight, maybe Luis and Walter Alvarez can help us find our way home.
Kenneth,
Read the presentation cited by me but not only the name of the file.
Asteroids have nothing to do with extinctions.
Kenneth,
The word “…possibilities…” taken out of context by you is written especially for ex-editors in order that they shouldn’t trouble too much and do not hurry to burrow vaults under their houses.
As for another case, when you take out of my context the word “iridium”, this shows that the scientific consideration of the mass extinction problem, in which the iridium anomalies in rocks are of great importance, is unfamiliar to you.
Kenneth,
In truth, to live in a skyscraper or earthscraper is a matter of habit. Moreover, a number of advantages exist: the ambient temperature is more stable, urban noises can be carried out to the surface, even sunlight can be transmitted through light conductor. Until people get hit with hard times, the Earth’s surface can be used for walking and transport, etc. It is known that there are a great number of underground living spaces, industrial enterprises, storages, transport lines at present. Meanwhile, exploitation of salt beds (they can be of X00 meters thick) is performed in some deposits at several levels and, at each of them, the mined-out spaces represent the cylindrical halls of 40-60 m in diameter and 40 m in height. In some underground caves, rapid pure-water rivers flow. In principle, the underground civilization is quite realizable; rather comfortable conditions can be created if no other possibilities exist.
Elena, Kenneth believe the Paris agreement requires us to make massive atmospheric CO2 extraction and store the CO2 geologically to solve climate change. He cannot imagine it is possible to use much less fossil carbon in the future.
Kenneth,
My question relates to the quite definite problem.
Its ignoring may really result in complete destruction of the civilization.
Please, don’t shunt.
If you want to discuss another question, formulate it and … Go ahead!
Interesting. I am on all fours with Timothy A. Ebert's submission of 5 days ago.
Dear Elena,
The effects of solar phenomena are reflected on the biodiversity of organismes ... & on the evolutional trands of species. And complet destruction of dinosaures not can be stopped ...
One civilization follows the other, as the species ...
Best winches,
MTT
Dear Bio, Dear Elbert, Dear All,
Dr. Ebert wrote three following issues 6 days ago.
(1) I think the greatest risk to biodiversity is much closer to home, at least in the near future.
(2) Well I am assuming that at abundance=0, diversity also equals zero. Since the event would destroy X% of all life, diversity would be affected.
(3) It would be better to concentrate on the things we can control. Population growth, environmental pollution, that sort of thing.
Below, I give my answers to each of these three issues.
(1’) Indeed, the dangers of the near future require a special attention. But, do you know when a dangerous protuberance will cover the Earth? Read the information of the NASA’s astrophysicists given in the Internet in the days of September 2018 about each those of powerful protuberances. They sound as signaling about possible great harms. Fortunately, one of them touched the Earth by its edge only. And what about the protuberance from the red dwarf DG CVn (Apr. 23, 2014)? Our presentation referred here earlier contains other examples.
(2’) There are grounds to expect that the future abundance≠0; apparently, destructions will cover a belt on the Earth’s surface, because some studies suggest that the belt of extinctions becomes narrower as the history goes.
(3’) We call for the development of scientific and engineering works aimed at creation of underground civilization and of chemical technologies for production of adequate nutrition from minerals, i.e., the work that is made for people by plants and animals. The performance of these goals may be useful in many situations, in particular, in the context of point (3).
And, which is important, we propose to do this in an orderly way, with no worry, and purposively.
Engineers have skills for building isolated underground housings, and we discovered the set of three minerals thermodynamically capable of being the basis for manufacturing nutrition.
Maybe, these directions of development of the science and engineering should be among the major ones in the 21st century.
Dear Marpha,
I believe that you could be interested in our paper published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution; its accepted version is available by the address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification
Dear Marpha,
Was I wrong when thinking that our work published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution should be of interest for you? I think that your opinion expressed 12 days ago in the last your issue is close to the conclusions of this our work. Indeed, as you write, «One civilization follows the other...», and just this statement is explained by this our paper and by our presentation available by the address: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future
(and also by the paper in Russian: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320187190_Massovye_vymirania_vidov_priciny_Fanerozojnyh_vymiranij_i_vozmoznost_povtorenia_podobnyh_avlenij_v_budusem_Plenarnaa_lekcia ).
Kenneth,
First, this sentence was written by Marpha Telepova-Texier, and I only cited it.
Second, if we would discuss the «physical law» term philosophic definition, we would go too far aside from the question formulated by me. You try again to shunt from discussion of socially important problem of advance protection against the conditions harmful for the Earth's flora and fauna.
Meanwhile, if some natural phenomenon repeated multiply on the Earth in the past, it will repeat in future because no principal natural changes occurred either on the Earth or in the Solar System. You can regard or not regard this statement as a physical law, but you are scarcely capable of disproving this statement, and, thus, it should receive the attention it deserves.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology