Earth v. Mars

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by thecollage, Jan 6, 2007.

  1. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> ignore URIs post. He's a crank.

    Have you the math to prove that ?

    I have the math to show you are a fool.

    LOL

    But as to the Sun expanding, yes I am not sure which is winning. Both processes are exceedingly slow (in our timeframe).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    thing is...sun's radius is expanding...but is its radiation dispersion changing? is it decreasing?...so will nothing change?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    all things end eventually I gues

    the martian northern hemisphere is indeed renewed.http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQ4NPJNVE_index_0.html


    What is interesting to note is that the present day northern hemisphere is as old as the southern hemisphere yet the northern hemisphere has significant less craters. For what ever this reasons is I'm sure it will be interesting.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    80? More like 55
     
  8. thecollage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    so what you are saying is that if we could determine the age of the farthest planet, we would have the age of our solar system? the middle planets are varying forms of the timeline.

    Interesting philosphy, logical and impressive, why the different sizes of planets? How did the Sun give birth to Jupiter? How did Jupiter acquire such a great mass?

    What about God and Creation.
     
  9. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    John Connellan in this world your only going to retire at 75. Be a little positive 75 years is hardly enof the become demented are yous sure that you would rather die at 75 or get blind, immobile and full of tubes but over the 100?

    thecollage
    What's wrong with a little diversity.
     
  10. thecollage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    figure it out without math
     
  11. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    No you're not! U retire at 65 and u die at 75.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Life expectancy. Sorry to have to say it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
  13. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    I thought u were optimistic?! Expecting to live to 100 is definitely optimism to the extreme!
     
  14. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    How about 1000?
     
  15. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Did he say that the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already?! We're going to develop this technology betweeen 15-20 years from now? And it can be used by people over the age of seventy? Does that mean it reverses ageing or does the person look like a 75 year old for the next 925 years of her life?!
     
  16. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    did you know that a person on Mars that's protected by radiation is proberly going to live longer then a human on earth, because of the gravity.

    It's a lovley interview of Aubrey de Grey by Aubrey de Grey.

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/feb2006_profile_01.htm

    By the way here is other recent article. 10 Years to proof the concept and 30 years before it can be used against humans. So the concept will be proven long before we visit Mars.

    It would apear that a person would look younger again. Altough it doesn't wrealy matter if you get a 130 and can't find a cure for alsheimer.
     
  17. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    I don't see anything about Mars or gravity in those links! Can u show them to us?
     
  18. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Yes I got that information from a book (kim stanley robinson). I also believe they make a reference in other books and films. But like you proberly noticed it's hard to find any evidence on it on the net.

    http://www.exploritorium.com/ronh/age/index.html
    But then again what would you do if a dokter said you only gave 1 year to live. I would say your better of on Mars or futher wouldn't you agree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Yes, that would be well over 200 years on Pluto

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    yeah and even longer on Sedna but try to find a car pool.
    I can't say however that I would decline a offer to live longer. Altough the world would get pretty fucked up verry fast if no human would die. Even if we would colonise mars if the world population would double evrey 50 years, then we wouldn't have a 100 years before it's full
     
  21. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    itll never be full...either expansion will solve it or war. Titan, Europa, Io, and Encelados are next on the list of colonists.
    The gas giants got enough fuel to power up primitive ways of traveling through space. Xenon engines used for sending probes...next come space stations and space ships...then huge solar sails (like Cosmos 1 project) ... and on and on ... Planet isnt good to live on? Terraform it. Cant terraform it? Extract anything usefull from it. Can extract anything usefull from it? use it as a junk site. Cant use it as a junk site? leave it or destroy it. And move on. Expansion with in-situ chemical utilization for human habitable environment creation. Life is sure fine.
     
  22. thecollage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    this has now turned into a mortality thread.

    lets focus on the possibility of this acutally having occurred. if it did, then what would be the expected lifetime for civilization? loosing the atmosphere would greatly resurface the planet which is what i beleive happened on Mars. there are signs of this around rock formations etc. it also appears that the planet did not have as much water as the earth. some, but not the 70% we have.

    trying to offer a solution, could we use the oceans to rebuild our atmopshere in attempts to reverse the effect the depletion of the ozone is causing?
     
  23. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Earth too much to bother with...we dont have the time. We ought to expand to other places like moons, space stations, and planets. Depletion of ozone acceleration is halted by Montreal Protocol...it sure serves the purpose. Ozone hole is recovering for sure. An engineering idea has been made to have huge blankets of foil from sort of material to reflect sunlight partially...but thats all crazy...and people will never invest in it. Most probable solution is to halt release of ozone depleting chemicals...as is done now. Current issue is not ozone but greenhouse effect...and thats something to deal with...

    And how can you use ocean to rebuilt ozone? Evaporate em? thatll cause greenhouse effect...as water is main ozone depleting chemical
     

Share This Page