All volcanoes on Mars are extinct. Is it an old planet?

[AlexB23]

Ah, Popular Science, a common vector for "futurist" stuff. Leaving HS and getting better reading material got me away from that one. You missed out on OMNI. That mag was weird.

I did miss out on OMNI, cos I am still pretty young. Popular Science deserves the trash bin, or should I say the recycling bin.

Was OMNI magazine any good?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did miss out on OMNI, cos I am still pretty young. Popular Science deserves the trash bin, or should I say the recycling bin.

I am aware of how young you are. I have older sweatshirts from college.

Was OMNI magazine any good?

I really don't recall. It tended to be on my "out of other stuff to read" list when I was in the HS library. PopSci, PopMech, Time, USNWR (we had Newsweek at home), Science News, Discover, SciAm all came first.

 

[timewerx]

Ah, Popular Science, a common vector for "futurist" stuff. Leaving HS and getting better reading material got me away from that one. You missed out on OMNI. That mag was weird.

My uncle in USA gave us a box of popsci mags with from around the year 2014.

Never liked them. It looked more like a product catalog of the latest gadgets and cars and stuff men usually shop for than anything else.

More peddling garbage than science. After browsing just one mag out of a hundred, we gave them up to someone else though I kept a few for propping up furniture.

The 1940's era popsci articles that sometimes pop up in my searches were entertaining though.

 

[Larniavc]

but one who thought we would have driverless cars before 2030.

We already have driverless cars.

 

[stevil]

They are both old planets. All the planets in the solar system formed from the accretion cloud after our sun formed ~4.5 billions years ago.

What would be considered new?

The universe is about 14 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that pretty new right?
Or would a planet need to be much younger to be considered new?
I guess our planet is probably middle aged since the Sun will run out of material in about 5 billion years.

Anyway, just being a bit silly here, but I don't know on a planatery scale what would be considered new.

 

[timewerx]

What would be considered new?

The universe is about 14 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that pretty new right?
Or would a planet need to be much younger to be considered new?
I guess our planet is probably middle aged since the Sun will run out of material in about 5 billion years.

Anyway, just being a bit silly here, but I don't know on a planatery scale what would be considered new.

If you crash a large asteroid into Earth. Something around 100 miles wide, Earth will become like a new planet again. It will look exactly like it did billions of years ago even if you go by the numbers. Life will be reset. The impact will transfer incredible amounts of energy to the Earth's interior resulting to insane levels of geological activity. Whatever remains on the surface will be buried in hundreds of feet of molten rock. It will completely erase all signs of human occupation like we never existed. It's back to square one.

It makes you wonder what the Lord meant by "New Earth". It can possibly point to a cataclysm that will melt the surface with intense heat. Most likely from a large impact with an asteroid or comet.

 

[AlexB23]

We already have driverless cars.

Ones that crash. Do you feel that a change from silicon electronics to photonic computing might change self driving?

The tech is almost here, but is not ready:

Optical computing: the power of light

Optical computing is a lesser-known technology than closely related fiber optics. Here's everything you need to know.

techhq.com

There were so many autopilot crashes, there is a Wiki page devoted to Tesla self-driving crashes:

List of Tesla Autopilot crashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ones that crash. Do you feel that a change from silicon electronics to photonic computing might change self driving?

The tech is almost here, but is not ready:

Optical computing: the power of light

Optical computing is a lesser-known technology than closely related fiber optics. Here's everything you need to know.

techhq.com

There were so many autopilot crashes, there is a Wiki page devoted to Tesla self-driving crashes:

List of Tesla Autopilot crashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Photonics" won't change the algorithms.

 

[sfs]

Losing the Ozone layer from chemical reactions with solar wind and cosmic rays is just one of the problem.

It may be one of the problems, but it's not a problem that you said occurred. You said that losing Earth's magnetic field would cause increased mutation and evolution because of increased radiation and toxic chemicals on the surface. Neither source you cite says anything at all about your claims.

Earth's magnetic field broke down 42,000 years ago and caused massive sudden climate change

www.unsw.edu.au

You might note that this study has been harshly criticized; see Comment on “A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago” and here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What would be considered new?

The universe is about 14 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that pretty new right?
Or would a planet need to be much younger to be considered new?
I guess our planet is probably middle aged since the Sun will run out of material in about 5 billion years.

Anyway, just being a bit silly here, but I don't know on a planatery scale what would be considered new.

I can imagine that any emerging planetoids in these protoplanetary disks are "new", at least comparatively.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Planetary evolution is a drag, isn't it?

 

[AlexB23]

"Photonics" won't change the algorithms.

That is true, but photonics would make it faster, just as GPUs made computers faster.

 

[timewerx]

It may be one of the problems, but it's not a problem that you said occurred. You said that losing Earth's magnetic field would cause increased mutation and evolution because of increased radiation and toxic chemicals on the surface. Neither source you cite says anything at all about your claims.

When you said none. UV radiation is mentioned in one. UV radiation can cause mutation in living cells which can lead to cancer.

This article mentions solar wind particles contribute to ozone loss (perhaps, temporarily). And that is with our geomagnetic field at healthy levels. Imagine what would happen if geomagnetic field is a lot weaker or even gone.

Less ozone means more UV rays making it to the ground.

KIT-IMK-ASF - About IMK-ASF - Research Groups - Middle atmosphere, solar variability, climate - Research field - Solar variability

www.imk-asf.kit.edu

You might note that this study has been harshly criticized; see Comment on “A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago” and here.

Interesting. In that case, the geomagnetic field is almost useless except for protecting satellites and aiding navigation if you don't have access to GPS.

 

[sfs]

When you said none. UV radiation is mentioned in one. UV radiation can cause mutation in living cells which can lead to cancer.

This article mentions solar wind particles contribute to ozone loss (perhaps, temporarily). And that is with our geomagnetic field at healthy levels. Imagine what would happen if geomagnetic field is a lot weaker or even gone.

Less ozone means more UV rays making it to the ground.

That is true -- it causes skin cancer. (It's not true that UV radiation causes germ-line mutations in organisms like us, so it will have little effect on our mutation rate). However, the accelerated evolution you're proposing was supposed to have occurred 590 million years ago, when the life in question was mostly on the sea floor -- where little to no UV penetrates. There were also probably extended periods of low oxygen throughout the Ediacaran, when there would have been little ozone to screen out UV.