Earth's population in 5 billion years - populate space?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
It seems that many cite dangers to earth as reasons to populate space - notably, for example, earth's future entering solar heating leading up to red giant phase.<br /><br />I do not consider that a reason to leave - see my thread on this.<br /><br />[Note: the Biblical model, which I believe, solves all of these problems, including overpopulation - a tangent I will post on eventually.]<br /><br />For a time during the 20th century earth's population doubled in 35 years.<br /><br />Assuming this rate for 5 billion years, what will earth's population be?<br /><br />Here goes - please correct me if I am wrong:<br /><br />Assume only 10 million stay behind on earth. [Many models, e.g.: all others go to populate space; the Biblical model: all others destroyed at Armageddon.]<br /><br />Now the math, simplified: [doubling every 35 years]<br /><br />Earth's population Years from now<br /><br />10 million<br />20 milllion in 35 years<br />40 m 70 yrs<br />80m - 105yr<br />160m - 140 yr<br />320 175<br />640/210<br />1280/245<br />2560/280<br />5120/315<br />10,240/350<br /><br />Ok, now to simplify: instead of 10 billion 240 million in 350 years, we will round down to exactly 10 billion.<br /><br />That means adding 3 zeros, 3 powers of ten, each 350 years.<br /><br />350 years - 10 billion population<br />700 yr - 10 trillion<br />1050 - 10 quadrillion.<br /><br />Now, simplify again. Round down to 1,000 years instead of 1050 years. Therefore 10 quadrillion population in 1,000 years. Or, add 9 zeros (= 9 powers of 10) each 1,000 years.<br /><br />Simplifying again, add 90 zeros every 10,000 years.<br /><br />Add 900 zeros in 100,000 years.<br />9,000 zeros in 1 million years.<br />900,000 zeros in 1 billion years<br />4,500,000 zeros in 5 billion years.<br /><br />Hence earth's population in 5 billion years will be 10^4,500,000.<br /><br />That's 1 followed by 4,500,000 zeros.<br /><br />What did I do wrong? I tho

M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Long before it got to that point, the competition for and the abuse of the earth's resources would cause global catastrophe.<br /><br />Unless there's only 144,000 left <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

N

newtonian

Guest
MeteorWayne - Yes, though Revelation 11:18 foretells that our Creator, Jehovah, will bring to ruin those ruining the earth at Armageddon.<br /><br />BTW - 144,000 (In Revelation 14:1-4 and chapter 7, is the number sealed to be Kings in heaven, not the great crowd of Revelation 7:9 who will survive Armageddon on earth.<br /><br />Interestingly, the Biblical model calls for being fruitful and multiplying (Genesis 1:28) and filling the earth.<br /><br />When you are asked to fill a cup of coffee, you don't keep pouring after its full!<br /><br />It is also interesting that there is to be no marriage for those resurected - I suspect the above population problem is one reason for this.<br /><br />This thread is concerning what would happen if....<br /><br />BTW, the mass of the universe is c. 10^80 amu, too small for the above population!

F

finaldeathh

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>BTW, the mass of the universe is c. 10^80 amu, too small for the above population! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The universe is infinite no matter what people will tell you. There is no end, there is no beginning.

K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">It is also interesting that there is to be no marriage for those resurected - I suspect the above population problem is one reason for this.</font><br /><br />Raelians are not suprised by this statement <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.

T

tfwthom

Guest
I have to ask.....where do you think that you can go?<br /><br />Today, the great Andromeda Galaxy lies roughly 2.36 million light-years from our own Milky Way Galaxy. However, the two largest members of the Local Group of galaxies are on a collision course. Over the next several billion years they will get closer and closer to one another, eventually merging in about 7 billion years. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1" color="#3366ff">www.siriuslookers.org</font> </div>

L

lukman

Guest
Nothing will happen due to collision as the galaxy (universe) is a very empty space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

L

lukman

Guest
Definetely wont happen as the whole universe population is only totalled at 10^96 atoms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

T

tfwthom

Guest
Nothing much is going to happen....want to buy a bridge I have in NYC?<br /><br />Galactic hit-and-run <br /><br />Infrared observations of the Andromeda Galaxy show it collided with dwarf galaxy M32 some 200 million years ago.<br /><br /><br />October 19, 2006<br /><br />The Andromeda galaxy, the closest large spiral to the Milky Way, appears calm and tranquil as it wheels through space. But appearances can be deceiving. Astronomers have new evidence that Andromeda was involved in a violent head-on collision with the neighboring dwarf galaxy Messier 32 (M32) more than 200 million years ago.<br /><br />"While our Atlantic Ocean was still forming, Messier 32 plowed head-long into Andromeda's disk of gas and stars," he added. "Only roaming dinosaurs saw the crash and held the secret, until the Spitzer Space Telescope spilled the beans."<br /><br />Research team members Frederic Bournaud and Francoise Combes (Observatoire de Paris) conducted a series of computer simulations to model the collision between Andromeda and M32. They found that M32 plunged through Andromeda's disk along the galaxy's polar axis approximately 210 million years ago.<br /><br />Since M32 is much less massive than Andromeda, the latter was not substantially disrupted, but the smaller galaxy lost more than half its initial mass in the course of the collision.<br /><br />"To continue the hit-and-run analogy, you could compare M32 to a compact car while Andromeda would be an 18-wheeler," explained Barmby. "In a collision between the two, the truck would be almost unharmed while the car would be wrecked. Similarly, M32 was much more damaged than Andromeda."<br /><br />Astronomers have predicted that Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide in approximately 5 to 10 billion years. That collision will erase the separate identities of each galaxy, leaving a single elliptical galaxy in their place.<br /><br /><br />Punched by a neighbor <br /><br />The Andromeda Galaxy has a hole in its disk where a satellite galaxy blasted thro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1" color="#3366ff">www.siriuslookers.org</font> </div>

M

MeteorWayne

Guest
He may have been saying nothing much will happen to us. Certainly the galaxies will be affected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

Z

zakstrikesback

Guest
actually, there will be huge changes to the galaxy during this collision. true they are mostly open space, but the question is not about the body to body collisions but the effects of the massive gravity. the fringes of both galaxies will be affected less but the cores of the galaxies will smash into each other ripping at each other and eventually the black holes at the center of each galaxy(it is widely accepted that there are black holes at the center of galaxies) will distort and "eat" the cores of the galaxies...this is hardly "nothing" as you say, in the realm of galactic collisions gravity is just as devastating as any matter colliding.

M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Again, the effects on earth will likely be none at least for the 5 billion years or so that our sun will be a functioning main sequence star.<br />The galaxies will never be the same <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

N

newtonian

Guest
littledreamer - Actually, I did not forget extinctions. <br /><br />I was simply calculating earth's population assuming doubling every 35 years.<br /><br />As to what will actually happen, crazyeddie would like me to avoid mentioning what I actually believe.<br /><br />For now, I will acquiesce.<br /><br />First, I would like to know if my calculation, with its assumption for easy math, is either correct or wrong?

N

newtonian

Guest
finaldeathh - You posted that our universe has no end - does that mean no finaldeathh??<br /><br />Why would you say our universe has no beginning?<br /><br />You imply that our universe is infinite in mass - is that what you meant - and why do you believe our universe is infinite in whatever ways you meant?? <br /><br />I do believe our universe and earth will remain forever, btw.<br /><br />That may, however, involve interaction with other universes, among other factors.

N

newtonian

Guest
kmarinas86 - So you agree?<br /><br />OK, I'll bite: to whom are you referring as Raelians?

A

alokmohan

Guest
Existence of other universes is fiction till now.

N

newtonian

Guest
lukman - I assume you mean nothing will happen to earth as a result of the Andromeda-Milky Way merger?<br /><br />How would you know, however, whether our sun is due to collide with a brown dwarf as a result of that merger?<br /><br />Where did you get the estimate of mass of our universe as 10^96 atoms? Did you mean amu (atomic mass units)?

N

newtonian

Guest
alokmohan - Hi!<br /><br />Why fiction? Why not speculation based on extrapolation from determining the origin of our universe?<br /><br />Take, for example, Linde's model involving scaler fields. Linde considered other universes likely were formed in a similar way, albeit with different properties.<br /><br />Whatever caused our universe - why just one universe - why not multiple causes and effects yielding multiple universes?<br /><br />I do consider parallel universes science fiction, btw.

N

newtonian

Guest
zakstikesback - good post.<br /><br />I might add that galactic mergers often spur the birth of many new stars.<br /><br />And a recent Science channel broadcast on supermassive black holes put forth the idea that these black holes actually pushed back galaxies and were part of the birth of galaxies.<br /><br />Note also that stellar collisions are more common near cores of galaxies - see the Scientific American article "When Stars Collide."

N

newtonian

Guest
Crazyeddie – Well, you at least agree with the Bible in saying that the Malthusian disaster prediction will not come true.<br /><br />In fact, the current problems with overpopulation are not because earth cannot support 6 billion people.<br /><br />Curious how you feel about the following quote, which alludes to Malthusian predictions:<br /><br />“A recent article in the New York Times carried this headline: “WORLD SEEN NEAR A FOOD DISASTER.” The article stated:<br />“Dr. John H. Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, said tonight that the world was coming close to the brink of a Malthusian disaster, with starvation and misery for millions . . .<br />“Among the 2-1/2 billion people living in the world’s less developed countries, Dr. Knowles said, 60 per cent [1-1/2 billion] are estimated to be malnourished, underdeveloped physically and poorly educated and 20 per cent [500 million] are believed to be starving at this moment.”<br />Population “Explosion”<br />One of the main reasons for such dire forecasts has to do with world population growth. It is “exploding.” And the largest growth is taking place in the very lands where food shortages already exist.<br />By 1975 there will be four billion people on earth. The net increase will then be about 80 million each year (it is now about 78 million each year for a population of 3.9 billion). Such increases each year are the equivalent of the entire population of Bangladesh. India alone adds some 13 million more mouths to feed annually.<br />What worries experts so much is that world population is increasing faster and faster. It took thousands of years for the world to reach a population of one billion, by about 1830. But it took only 100 years for the second billion, by 1930. Then it took only 30 years for the third billion, by 1960. However, it evidently is taking only 15 years for the fourth billion—in 1975!” – “Awake!,” 7/22/74, pp. 5-6. <br /><br />You are correct that population growth has slowed down – in percentage

N

newtonian

Guest
TFWThom – I have to ask – was your question about where we could go meant for me or kmarinas?<br /><br />I do think it is perhaps more than coincidence that our galaxy is due to merge with Andromeda about the same time our sun is due to go to red giant stage.<br /><br />In view of the fine tuning of our universe for stars and life to exist, and the fine tuning of earth’s environment for humans to exist comfortably, I consider that earth’s trajectory, and that of our sun, may be fine tuned for a brown dwarf merger some 5-10 billion years from now.<br /><br />So a tangent question would be: How fine tuned would the trajectory of earth and sun have to be to have a precisely correct merger of our sun with a brown dwarf in Andromeda such that our sun will be returned to early main sequence at that time?<br /><br />See the Scientific American article “When stars collide” for information on rejuvenation of star by collisions.<br /><br />More on thread theme – perhaps we are scheduled to merge with Andromeda at that time since we may have begun to run out of earth-like planets to populate in Milky Way by then?<br /><br />Or, more likely, the orbits of some earth-like planets, both in Andromeda and Milky Way, may be perturbed by the merger such that they will come into range for us to populate at that time?<br /><br />On your next post – thank you for those updates of discoveries by the Spitzer space telescope concerning the Andromeda – M-32 collision.<br /><br />Is M-32 still in orbit or gravitationally bound to Andromeda? I.e. – how hovering?

N

nexium

Guest
I agree the merging of our galaxy with another could create oportunities to colonize other solar systems. Most experts however are of the opinion that Earth will be too hot long before the Andromeda merger reaches the vicinity of Earth. I think we should assume that lesser mergers are likely to occur sooner, perhaps such mergers are already in progress and will reach the vicinity of Earth in millions of years, instead of a few billion years.<br />My guess is some speed is lost during a merger, so galaxies are not lost from the local group as a result of of a merger = pass though with part of the local group of galaxies, so The Milky Way and M32 will stay in the local group unless a very high mass and fast outsider galaxiy passes though the local group. Neil

L

lukman

Guest
I assume you mean nothing will happen to earth as a result of the Andromeda-Milky Way merger?<br />- Direct impact will be less likely, but maybe the shock wave of the supermassive blackhole in the center of both galaxy when they collided will be mega devastated. <br />How would you know, however, whether our sun is due to collide with a brown dwarf as a result of that merger?<br />-Maybe, maybe, but where will you put your money in?<br />Where did you get the estimate of mass of our universe as 10^96 atoms? Did you mean amu (atomic mass units)?<br />-From many source, actually i didnt remember the exact number, it is 10^9x, although either the x is 2 or 6, extremely big differences. You can check wikipedia, i think they have the information. (btw, it is not amu, but really the total atoms -P) <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

L

lukman

Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom<br /><br />Sorry, i must have got the 10^9x atoms from other source, wikipedia says they are only 10^80 atoms in the universe. Maybe the figure was estimated few years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

N

newtonian

Guest
lukman - Of course, wikipedia is not infallible.<br /><br />I have read various estimates for the mass of the universe similar to this - see my theory thread.<br /><br />It is certainly no where near 10^4,500,000 or whatever the future population of earth would be using my opening calculation.<br /><br />I have read 10^80 atomic mass units, amu - which is similar to the mass of 10^80 hydrogen atoms- however, our universe also has many helium atoms, plus more massive atoms, so this is likely an estimate.<br /><br />Also, I do believe this is the estimate for the observable universe - not the entire universe.<br /><br />Perhaps the 10^96 amu or atoms is an estimate of the mass of the entire universe including the portion that lies beyond our visibility horizon?<br /><br />BTW - One thing I gather from my calculation is that we can most certainly occupy earth all the way to the core and well above the current surface of the earth by 5 billion years from now - we will have no shortage of workers and the technology would likely be far beyond what we even imagine now.<br /><br />Not to mention robotics!<br /><br />This thead is actually a tangent from my surviving red giant phase thread - to consider the future population involved in working hard to survive.<br /><br />And also the logic behind populating space. <br /><br />However, the Biblical model of everlasting life on a paradise earth involves only filling the earth - not overfilling it. <br /><br />And I really do not know what that future population might be or whether we will be directed to populate space.<br /><br />I suspect a population of roughly 6 trillion, btw. That is my own personal, and certainly fallible, model. I will post it if anyone wants me to.

Status
Not open for further replies.