Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

If we're going to be tolerating edgelord jrpg villian speeches, I'll be muting the thread. Just got no interest in that noise.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:

The collision is why we have the geomagnetic field from the geodynamo.

Which might be why solar winds didn’t blow off our atmosphere like Mars. I’m inclined to agree the collision is necessary.

I'm not sure that's true. Mercury has a magnetic field despite no collision. Venus mostly lacks one, but iirc that's mostly because it's rotations is so slow.

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Ehh Mars is the counter example. Not big enough to have one and didn’t have a collision like ours.

Another weird thing is that the gas giants didn’t keep moving inward in our solar system.

Mar is solid though, you wouldn't expect a magnetic field. I'm just not seeing the logic that a mega collision is neccasery for a rocky planet to have a field.

I don't think we can say our gas giants are all that unusual either. In the early days of exoplanet discovery some commentators confused themselves about that since the only planets we were able to detect were large and close, so it massively biased the sample. Now we're starting to manage to detect less extreme solar systems, and while it's too early to say much about what is common and what isn't, it's clear that hot Jupiter's aren't as ubiquitous as those early commentators were claiming.

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Right, Mars is solid because it’s smaller and didn’t have a late collision. That’s not the only way to get one but it’s probably why we have ours.

In other observed solar systems the pattern for gas giants is to keep moving inward and they end up closer to the star. They end up hoovering up or ejecting the rocky planets if that happens. Something weird happened with Jupiter and atleast one of our other gas giants that stopped that.

Ok, this is flat out wrong. Most of the initial thermal energy of a rocky planet gets lost "relatively" quickly. That's what lead Lord Kelvin to erroneously claim that the Earth could only be a few millions years old. The mega collision would have liquidified the planet and dumped a load of thermal energy into the system, but Earth and Venus have retained magma cores mostly due to energy released in radioactive decay, and as a function of their sheer size making holding onto their initial accretion energy easier.

With regards to whether we have a particularly strange arrangement of gas giants, we just don't have enough data yet. All our methods for detecting exoplants are massively biased, making certain types of systems much easier to detect. The biggest bias is towards those systems where the gas giants have migrated inwards. We don't know if that's typical behaviour yet, it's just the type of system that we find easiest to find.

Bug Squash fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 4, 2021

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

I don't think I disagree with anything you just posted, my issue is with the claim that the giant impact, assuming it happened, is nessesary for a magnetic field to form on a rocky planet, for the reason that the planet would be solid otherwise.

The fact that Venus has a liquid interior, but no evidence of a giant impact, seems to break this chain of reason.

(Note that Venus doesn't have a strong magnetic field due to how slowly it rotates and some other effects. I think this is irrelevant to the discussion, but feel free to disagree)

(Also, it could be that giant impacts are actually common but usually leave no evidence and earth is only odd in that it got left with a big mood. If that's the case then it's just part of normal planetary formation and doesn't have much to say about how common life is)

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:

So pinning that we still have a liquid core on radioactive decay of an unknown amount is reasonable?

The collision also gave us a bigger planet and bigger planets cool down slower. Again the comparison is to Mars. Venus kept its atmosphere without a magnetic field, because it’s about the same size. But what did it keep? Heavy gases, CO2 / SO2.

What happened to its O, H2O, N2, ammonia, etc? Stuff life seems to need. That stuff didn’t get to stick around, because no strong magnetic field.

Yes, but it lacks a magnetic field (mostly) because it's not spinning like a normal planet, due to some unknown quirk of it's formation. Just pure chance. It proves you don't need a giant impact to get all the underlying material conditions for a magnetic field. In other solar systems I'd wager good money there are Venus like planets with fully functional magnetic fields.

Edit: what we're discussing is if a late giant impact is essential for life to start on any planet. Sure, if earth itself hadn't had one it might not have been big enough to retain its atmosphere, but that's completely irrelevant to discussing whether a giant impact is a necessary precondition of life.

Bug Squash fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 4, 2021

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:


So look at it this way. We’ve got:

Liquid core.
Larger rocky planet size.
Moon and associated stable rotation.
Light gases kept, gases essential to life.
Volcanism that might be needed for life to start.

And those things are all the result of the late collision.

Literally all of those things can exist without a late major collision, with the possible exception of a large moon. I do not understand why you believe that a planet cannot ever, in all the universe, exist with these properties without a giant impact, especially when we have active counter examples in our own solar system.

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

That's kind of a pointless arguement though. There's probably millions of astronomical events that happened without which earth would have no life. It tells us nothing about broader patterns.

vvvv you've changed your position, you were insisting it was nessesary for life, full stop.

Bug Squash fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Feb 5, 2021

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Preen Dog posted:

We would program the AGI to love serving us, in which case it wouldn't really be oppression.

"You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?" whispered Trillian to Ford.

"That's absolutely horrible," exclaimed Arthur, "the most revolting thing I've ever heard."

"What's the problem Earthman?" said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump.

"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to," said Arthur, "It's heartless."

"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod.

"That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just... er [...] I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered.

"May I urge you to consider my liver?" asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months."

"A green salad," said Arthur emphatically.

"A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.

"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"

"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am."

It managed a very slight bow.

"Glass of water please," said Arthur.

"Look," said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years."

The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. "A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good," it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself."

He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. "Don't worry, sir," he said, "I'll be very humane."

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

There's probably a point where ai becomes dangerous in it's own right, probably through a universal paper clips style function maximisation resulting in behaviour that's harmful to humans rather than the megalomania villiany of sci-fi.

What we should be much more concerned about is how increasingly sophisticated dumb ai is going to give more and more power to the already very rich and powerful. What's it going to mean for democracy when Zuckerberg owns a couple of Metal Gear Arsenals controlling all media, a drone army, and automated workforce? All those pieces are partially in place already. At the moment a would be dictator needs to have some kind of popular support and willing compliance from enough people in the media and military, but eventually all you'll need to have is enough money and you can buy all the pieces you need. I think we're going to see these issues become more and more severe over coming years, long before any AGI becomes a practical threat.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bug Squash
Mar 18, 2009

Groucho Marx posted:

What's posterity ever done for me?

Long term planning is great and all, but there isn't going to be a shining future if you don't do something about the present, yah dingus brain genius.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply