Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Were Mars and Venus ever living planets?   (forbes.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Solar System, Planet, Earth, Venus, Mars, Atmosphere, Sun, Water  
•       •       •

903 clicks; posted to STEM » on 16 Apr 2021 at 11:48 AM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-04-16 11:54:45 AM  
Forbes article?

(open in incognito, scroll to bottom of page)

Article: We don't know

Finished
 
2021-04-16 11:54:46 AM  
Probably not.
 
2021-04-16 12:02:32 PM  
There is almost no chance human-caused climate change will kill life on the planet.

Most of the humans, sure. Most of the remaining megafauna, perhaps. But all life?

Not even if we try to halt climate change by sychronized detonation of everybody's nukes.

Butt the sunsets might be spectacular for a while for those left to see them...
 
2021-04-16 12:07:32 PM  
No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.
 
2021-04-16 12:13:42 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


...Wow
 
2021-04-16 12:14:35 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


Tell that to the residents of Hawaii and Iceland.
 
2021-04-16 12:19:52 PM  
Given some of the extremophiles that have been discovered here on earth, I have virtually no doubt at all that there was (and possibly still is) life on both Mars and Venus.

Of course, any life currently on either planet is probably limited to very simple organisms, most likely microscopic.
 
2021-04-16 12:21:43 PM  
not clicking on ANOTHER forbes science link!
 
2021-04-16 12:42:30 PM  
If there was life on Mars, it'd be a god-awful small affair and it ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.
 
2021-04-16 12:45:22 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 1:01:11 PM  
You mean like Ego from GOTG?
 
2021-04-16 1:07:28 PM  

KRSESQ: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

Tell that to the residents of Hawaii and Iceland.


Should I also tell it to the residents of Io, Enceladus, Titan, and Pluto?
 
2021-04-16 1:08:40 PM  

Drearyx: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

...Wow


Hey, it's not my fault subby used very imprecise language.
 
2021-04-16 1:22:43 PM  
Could they have had life on them, if not now, than in our distant past?

Ouch. C'mon Forbes, you can do better.
 
2021-04-16 1:23:08 PM  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.
 
2021-04-16 1:42:33 PM  

KRSESQ: Forbes article?

(open in incognito, scroll to bottom of page)

Article: We don't know

Finished


You just described all of science
 
2021-04-16 1:47:27 PM  

Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.


Istr they think these periodical resurfacing events happen regularly on Venus like every 500my or something like that. That would mean any life evolving would be between those events - & probably sterilized when the entire surface became liquid magma.
 
2021-04-16 2:14:28 PM  

dittybopper: KRSESQ: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

Tell that to the residents of Hawaii and Iceland.

Should I also tell it to the residents of Io, Enceladus, Titan, and Pluto?


What makes you think they're not living worlds?
 
2021-04-16 2:56:01 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


Thank you, Mr Pedantic Jerk.
 
2021-04-16 3:03:46 PM  

KRSESQ: dittybopper: KRSESQ: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

Tell that to the residents of Hawaii and Iceland.

Should I also tell it to the residents of Io, Enceladus, Titan, and Pluto?

What makes you think they're not living worlds?


I want you to call your parents up and insist that they get a refund on their school taxes, because damn did they fail to educate you.
 
2021-04-16 3:09:54 PM  

dittybopper: KRSESQ: dittybopper: KRSESQ: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

Tell that to the residents of Hawaii and Iceland.

Should I also tell it to the residents of Io, Enceladus, Titan, and Pluto?

What makes you think they're not living worlds?

I want you to call your parents up and insist that they get a refund on their school taxes, because damn did they fail to educate you.


Is that the best you got? Jesus.
 
2021-04-16 3:55:29 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 4:03:46 PM  

Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.


I've read before that there's evidence of a large planet-sized object hitting Venus which is also what essentially stopped its rotation. Being closer to the sun didn't help but such an impact likely sped up the process.
 
2021-04-16 4:03:56 PM  
Someone obviously hasn't watched captain planet.
 
2021-04-16 4:34:57 PM  

cfreak: Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.

I've read before that there's evidence of a large planet-sized object hitting Venus which is also what essentially stopped its rotation. Being closer to the sun didn't help but such an impact likely sped up the process.


Mars sized?
 
2021-04-16 4:45:43 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: cfreak: Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.

I've read before that there's evidence of a large planet-sized object hitting Venus which is also what essentially stopped its rotation. Being closer to the sun didn't help but such an impact likely sped up the process.

Mars sized?


Sadly I can't find the article now so maybe I'm mistaken. What i'm seeing out there now says they don't know what caused it.

/  I was wrong on Fark
 
2021-04-16 4:53:53 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

They were, and they were loaded with attractive women!  What I always found hilarious is the Earthling who ended up on Venus had been trying to get to Mars after reading Burroughs' books. Early meta-sci fi.
 
2021-04-16 4:56:44 PM  

dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.


You are aware that some terms do not mean the literal meaning of their constituent words, don't you? "Living fossil" does not mean we have mineralized skelingtons walking around.
 
2021-04-16 5:10:58 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: dittybopper: No, because not even the Earth is a living planet.   The Earth has life on it, but it was never living itself.

Thank you, Mr Pedantic Jerk.


Well, to be fair, the vast majority of Earth's mass is dealing with inorganic chemisty and inorganic physics. Life on Earth is restricted to a thin layer of slime upon the surface, and a touch more beneath the oceans.

This thin layer of slime gave us birth, and breath. We should not take it for granted.
 
2021-04-16 5:19:13 PM  

WonderDave1: [Fark user image image 271x450]
[Fark user image image 244x407]
They were, and they were loaded with attractive women!  What I always found hilarious is the Earthling who ended up on Venus had been trying to get to Mars after reading Burroughs' books. Early meta-sci fi.


So that's what Maurine Brinbaum Barbarian Swordsperson was riffing off of.
 
2021-04-16 5:43:07 PM  

wage0048: Given some of the extremophiles that have been discovered here on earth, I have virtually no doubt at all that there was (and possibly still is) life on both Mars and Venus.

Of course, any life currently on either planet is probably limited to very simple organisms, most likely microscopic.


Chemically Mars would have been a better candidate for life to start on than earth since there is a higher percentage of many chemicals needed for life, such as phosphorus, in the Martian crust than there is on earth. If Mars had been a little bigger to be able to maintain a magnetic field and have a higher gravity to retain liquid water they could have been studying life on Earth before any life here could even grasp the concept of a planet.

I doubt now there would be any life on Mars that's multicellular unless there are buried seas. Large bodies of water that got sealed under a kilometre thick ice sheet when the planet started to lose its water and atmosphere, then the ice sheet gets covered with dirt kicked up by the planetary dust storms until it looks like the rest of the planet. But even if there are trapped subterranean seas they'd probably be too salty to support anything other than single celled extremophiles. It would be cool but I don't think we'll find tardigrades or other similar micro-animals
 
2021-04-16 6:32:35 PM  
This thread could have been so much more interesting. Instead we have cheap shots at Forbes along with a tiresome debate about how wrong the term 'living planet' might be.
 
2021-04-16 8:04:39 PM  

cfreak: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: cfreak: Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.

I've read before that there's evidence of a large planet-sized object hitting Venus which is also what essentially stopped its rotation. Being closer to the sun didn't help but such an impact likely sped up the process.

Mars sized?

Sadly I can't find the article now so maybe I'm mistaken. What i'm seeing out there now says they don't know what caused it.

/  I was wrong on Fark


That theory has been changed from the original version, which postulated an impact well after the formation of the planet. The math doesnt really support that, as anything with enough mass to reverse the rotation would have instead vaporized the planet.

Currently those who support an impactor theory think that if the planet's rotation was caused by an impact, that impact must have been between two planetesimals that melded to form the protoplanet.

Another thought is that the planet may have been rotating correctly at the beginning, but a glancing blow from a large impactor may have flipped it "upside down", so the spin appears reversed. This would have required a very fast initial spin that has slowed down over the time since the flip. IMO unlikely, but I like it.

The prevailing theory right now depends on the math of turbulent flow in regards to the superthick atmosphere. The explanations of this math are way above my comprehension (fluid dynamics has never been my forte), but the basic idea is that friction between the planetary crust and the atmospheric tides has either reversed the spin or flipped the planet over.
 
2021-04-16 9:46:59 PM  

Ghastly: wage0048: Given some of the extremophiles that have been discovered here on earth, I have virtually no doubt at all that there was (and possibly still is) life on both Mars and Venus.

Of course, any life currently on either planet is probably limited to very simple organisms, most likely microscopic.

Chemically Mars would have been a better candidate for life to start on than earth since there is a higher percentage of many chemicals needed for life, such as phosphorus, in the Martian crust than there is on earth. If Mars had been a little bigger to be able to maintain a magnetic field and have a higher gravity to retain liquid water they could have been studying life on Earth before any life here could even grasp the concept of a planet.

I doubt now there would be any life on Mars that's multicellular unless there are buried seas. Large bodies of water that got sealed under a kilometre thick ice sheet when the planet started to lose its water and atmosphere, then the ice sheet gets covered with dirt kicked up by the planetary dust storms until it looks like the rest of the planet. But even if there are trapped subterranean seas they'd probably be too salty to support anything other than single celled extremophiles. It would be cool but I don't think we'll find tardigrades or other similar micro-animals


No martian tentacle monsters?
 
2021-04-17 2:19:32 AM  
Were they ever... the parties we had. Sigh.
 
2021-04-17 10:25:36 AM  

cfreak: Befuddled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Almost a thousand impact craters on Venus are evenly distributed across its surface. On other cratered bodies, such as Earth and the Moon, craters show a range of states of degradation. On the Moon, degradation is caused by subsequent impacts, whereas on Earth it is caused by wind and rain erosion. On Venus, about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition. The number of craters, together with their well-preserved condition, indicates the planet underwent a global resurfacing event 300-600million years ago, followed by a decay in volcanism.

It sounds like something truly catastrophic happened on Venus not that long ago, geologically speaking. Maybe it was always a hellish environment, but there is a chance that before the global resurfacing event happened it was a place more hospitable to life.

I've read before that there's evidence of a large planet-sized object hitting Venus which is also what essentially stopped its rotation. Being closer to the sun didn't help but such an impact likely sped up the process.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2021-04-17 6:16:14 PM  

leeksfromchichis: Ghastly: wage0048: Given some of the extremophiles that have been discovered here on earth, I have virtually no doubt at all that there was (and possibly still is) life on both Mars and Venus.

Of course, any life currently on either planet is probably limited to very simple organisms, most likely microscopic.

Chemically Mars would have been a better candidate for life to start on than earth since there is a higher percentage of many chemicals needed for life, such as phosphorus, in the Martian crust than there is on earth. If Mars had been a little bigger to be able to maintain a magnetic field and have a higher gravity to retain liquid water they could have been studying life on Earth before any life here could even grasp the concept of a planet.

I doubt now there would be any life on Mars that's multicellular unless there are buried seas. Large bodies of water that got sealed under a kilometre thick ice sheet when the planet started to lose its water and atmosphere, then the ice sheet gets covered with dirt kicked up by the planetary dust storms until it looks like the rest of the planet. But even if there are trapped subterranean seas they'd probably be too salty to support anything other than single celled extremophiles. It would be cool but I don't think we'll find tardigrades or other similar micro-animals

No martian tentacle monsters?


Why even go on living? Right?
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.