NASA's new simulation of ancient Mars looks just like Earth - Polidicks

Weird to know that at one point, Mars was basically Earth V2. Then it all went to shit. Wonder if this'll happen to Earth too, at least Mars will have a little brother.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;42866536]Weird to know that at one point, Mars was basically Earth V2. Then it all went to shit. Wonder if this'll happen to Earth too, at least Mars will have a little brother.[/QUOTE] Or we're Mars V2.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;42866536]Weird to know that at one point, Mars was basically Earth V2. Then it all went to shit. Wonder if this'll happen to Earth too, at least Mars will have a little brother.[/QUOTE] Except Mars is smaller than Earth, so...

This is actually pretty sad.

[QUOTE=EVIL WEVIL;42866659]This is actually pretty sad.[/QUOTE] It's like finding out that you had a twin brother, but he and anyone else who could ever tell you died before you were old enough to realize it. [editline]14th November 2013[/editline] We could have had another form of life to relate to...

Reminder that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Physical_characteristics]Mars has 11% the mass of Earth[/url], and as mass and size go [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Physical_characteristics]Venus is much similar[/url]. It's just a shame Venus has such a terrible atmosphere; the again it could be the thing that prevented Earth's annexation by Venusians.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;42864675]Doesn't a huge amount of Earth's heat come from fissile material as well? Maybe the reason Mars never had a real magnetosphere is because earth has all of it, which is both really great and also kind of a shame, we're here today because of it but we can't see what life on Mars might have been like because of it.[/QUOTE] For some reason I want to say that the denser elements would probably be fairly homogeneous throughout the protoplanetary disk that the solar system formed from. I imagine Mars would have gotten a fairly similar proportion of fissile materials as Earth but simply because it's smaller the amount it got was only enough to keep the core molten for as long as it did and no longer. Also, on some of the above points in this thread. - I believe the solar erosion theory is actually not as solid as was once thought (I was always under the impression that this was THE reason Mars lost its atmosphere, but I was doing some reading a while back and apparently it doesn't account for anywhere near enough loss over time to explain how sparse the Martian atmosphere is today). - Fissile materials are indeed why the Earth still has a molten outer core to my knowledge. Once the radioactive decay in the core drops below a certain threshold the outer core will be compressed into a solid by the pressure it's under just as the inner core was. Again, in relation to what I said above this is probably why Mars 'died'. Less radioactive materials, less decay, less heat, core froze up (although again, proportionally speaking I want to say Mars would have a similar amount of fissile material to non-fissile material in it). - I'd hazard a guess that Mars' increased surface area to volume ratio probably sped up the heat loss process, as well. Proportionally more of Mars' 'volume' is exposed to the rest of the universe to radiate heat away into than Earth's so the heat that is generated is more rapidly lost.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42866111]You think we were descendants from Mars?[/QUOTE] If there was life on mars then maybe life on earth and life on mars share the same origins, it's a possibility but it certainly isn't necessary.. it would really require us to find marsian life and study it and find similarities but yeah

[QUOTE=Orkel;42862502]No, the planet's core stopped rotating, causing the magnetic field to collapse and solar winds slowly stripped the atmosphere away. The small size of the planet contributed though, the low mass couldn't sustain the core so indirectly you may be right. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mind_blown.gif[/img]

The most interesting implication from this is that if the conditions for life to arise existed in two locations in our solar system at one time then who's to say that these conditions aren't commonplace in the universe?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42867368]The most interesting implication from this is that if the conditions for life to arise existed in two locations in our solar system at one time then who's to say that these conditions aren't commonplace in the universe?[/QUOTE] I think recently tests in "primordial soup" like conditions showed how often the components for life assembled themselves. I can't find the article right now but it seemed to say that life puts itself together under the right conditions pretty reliably. [editline]14th November 2013[/editline] Does anyone know the name of the theory regarding TIME in relation to the forming of life? I forget its name but it's "<xyz> paradox" I believe.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;42867426]I think recently tests in "primordial soup" like conditions showed how often the components for life assembled themselves. I can't find the article right now but it seemed to say that life puts itself together under the right conditions pretty reliably. [editline]14th November 2013[/editline] Does anyone know the name of the theory regarding TIME in relation to the forming of life? I forget its name but it's "<xyz> paradox" I believe.[/QUOTE] You're thinking of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment"]Miller-Urey experiment[/URL]. Basically in conditions that are thought to be the same as primordial Earth and with a spark simulating a lightning strike ALL of the necessary amino acids required for life (plus a few extra) were found to form. Pretty amazing stuff.

I thought the primordial soup model was largely discredited by other models (bubble model, and another one that works with lightening I believe)

[quote]No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment. The planet Mars, I scarcely need remind the reader, revolves about the sun at a mean distance of 140,000,000 miles, and the light and heat it receives from the sun is barely half of that received by this world. It must be, if the nebular hypothesis has any truth, older than our world; and long before this earth ceased to be molten, life upon its surface must have begun its course. The fact that it is scarcely one seventh of the volume of the earth must have accelerated its cooling to the temperature at which life could begin. It has air and water and all that is necessary for the support of animated existence. Yet so vain is man, and so blinded by his vanity, that no writer, up to the very end of the nineteenth century, expressed any idea that intelligent life might have developed there far, or indeed at all, beyond its earthly level. Nor was it generally understood that since Mars is older than our earth, with scarcely a quarter of the superficial area and remoter from the sun, it necessarily follows that it is not only more distant from time's beginning but nearer its end. The secular cooling that must someday overtake our planet has already gone far indeed with our neighbour. Its physical condition is still largely a mystery, but we know now that even in its equatorial region the midday temperature barely approaches that of our coldest winter. Its air is much more attenuated than ours, its oceans have shrunk until they cover but a third of its surface, and as its slow seasons change huge snowcaps gather and melt about either pole and periodically inundate its temperate zones. That last stage of exhaustion, which to us is still incredibly remote, has become a present-day problem for the inhabitants of Mars. The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers, and hardened their hearts. And looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42868068]I thought the primordial soup model was largely discredited by other models (bubble model, and another one that works with lightening I believe)[/QUOTE] Oh sorry, I wasn't aware that it was tied to a particular theory. I'm using it to (erroneously?) refer to early earth.

I'm crazy by being reminded of Riven when watching this video. Right? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iYRXKc7.jpg[/IMG]

Imagine what could have been.

Can this sort of thing happen to Earth too? I am not too savvy when it comes to space and planet sciences

[QUOTE=gsp1995;42866338]I mean, the human race is so different from all the other inhabitants in planet Earth.[/QUOTE] FYI dolphins are sapient

[QUOTE=ironman17;42862639]I'm pretty sure that's how it worked; as for why it stopped rotating, maybe there were impurities in the iron core, or that the planet cooled a little too quickly, with the planet's magma becoming thicker and dragging on the rotating core, which eventually slowed the core's rotation enough for the magnetic fields to fail and reduce Mars to the frozen dustbowl we see today. It'd take a lot of energy to reheat the magma of Mars and reboot the core's spin, and nuclear explosives probably wouldn't be the best idea, although aren't there a fair bit of radioactive elements in Earth's magma? Not suggesting that Earth's core was kickstarted by atomic bombs, but radioactive materials tend to give off some semblance of heat as they decay, right? Maybe Mars didn't have as much radioactive material in it's blood, which caused it to cool quicker than Earth? Inevitably Earth's innards may cool significantly in maybe a billion or so years; we just had the benefit of cropping up while our world is still geologically active to a significant degree?[/QUOTE] I don't know. Let's consult this movie. [IMG]http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/the-core-movie-poster-2003-picture-mov_57f0f933_b.jpg[/IMG] Look at this. This is plutonium and it's so hot they use it to keep astronauts warm in outer space or to power spacecraft. Heck, it's hot enough to glow by its own power. While plutonium and other radioactive elements in general may be rare in Earth's crust, I bet there are BIG ASS chunks at the center of Earth. [IMG]http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Pu-238-USEnergyDepartment.jpg[/IMG]

Plutonium must have a very short half-life. Wait... 80 million years? Damn.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42862680]understatement of the millenium right here i cba to do the maths but the quantities of energy you're suggesting involve -you guessed it- stars[/QUOTE] I kinda wanna write a novel now revolving around a future where humans are trying to "reboot" Mars.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;42869500]I kinda wanna write a novel now revolving around a future where humans are trying to "reboot" Mars.[/QUOTE] Sorry, mate. Read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' series.

[QUOTE=archangel125;42869505]Sorry, mate. Read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' series.[/QUOTE] Fuck Why are all the good sci-fi ideas already taken

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;42869516]Fuck Why are all the good sci-fi ideas already taken[/QUOTE] If you take the time to read it, you won't even be mad. It's so beautifully done. Imagine some really technical hard science and sociopolitical content combined with a child-like wonder at nature, the universe, and the good in humanity. It looks also at modern societal constructs, and points out the similarities to tribal symbolism and primal instinct - All within a very engaging novel with deep characters.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42866503]So the basic premise behind the movie The Core was actually correct? (Aside from it being able to happen here, today)[/QUOTE] It would happen much slower but yes, that bit of the science in that movie was right, and it wasn't a half bad movie if you ask me, although a bit on the silly side of science [editline]15th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cqbcat;42869462]I don't know. Let's consult this movie. [IMG]http://paulboylan.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/the-core-movie-poster-2003-picture-mov_57f0f933_b.jpg[/IMG] Look at this. This is plutonium and it's so hot they use it to keep astronauts warm in outer space or to power spacecraft. Heck, it's hot enough to glow by its own power. While plutonium and other radioactive elements in general may be rare in Earth's crust, I bet there are BIG ASS chunks at the center of Earth. [IMG]http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Pu-238-USEnergyDepartment.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Plutonium doesn't exist in nature, uranium on the other hand does, its half-life, of the longest lived isotope, is only 80 million years, meaning if there was ever any in the earth, its long since decayed

[QUOTE=Rocko's;42866536]Weird to know that at one point, Mars was basically Earth V2. Then it all went to shit. Wonder if this'll happen to Earth too, at least Mars will have a little brother.[/QUOTE] Well, if what i think is correct, our core will cool down a bit in a few whatthefuck years, causing more friction between the core and the layer thingy causing it to stop completely

[QUOTE=viperfan7;42869532]It would happen much slower but yes, that bit of the science in that movie was right, and it wasn't a half bad movie if you ask me, although a bit on the silly side of science [editline]15th November 2013[/editline] Plutonium doesn't exist in nature, uranium on the other hand does, its half-life, of the longest lived isotope, is only 80 million years, meaning if there was ever any in the earth, its long since decayed[/QUOTE] There are still some trace amounts of plutonium kicking around in the Earth, some it the dregs of the plutonium that was left when the Earth was formed, and some of it due to decay chains or weird decay/fission events occurring in Uranium.