Can solar winds destroy life on earth?
For an answer to this that contains a visual aid, look to Mars. It is almost certain that early Mars had a thick atmosphere and liquid water on its surface. Because Mars has such light gravity, and any magnetic field it may have had, weakened not long after Mars was created. Most likely due to its size and mass. Any liquid iron it may have had in its outer core cooled long ago, because it’s small (10% of Earth). With no interaction between a solid core and a liquid core, there is no magnetic field.The atmosphere, unable to be kept completely in place by gravity, was bombarded by the solar wind when the magnetic field weakened. The combination of weak gravity and the weak magnetic field meant the solar winds stripped away most of the atmosphere and dried up the water.If we were to lose our magnetic filed, or if it dramatically weakened, we would have Mars’ problems. Our gravity is not an issue, but it’s not enough to protect Earth on its own.
Planetary Science: Could Earth lose its Magnetosphere like Mars and Venus did?
Eventually, yes!The reason for Earth to have a magnetosphere is due to the convective movements of the liquid outer core of the Earth. This outer core is full of metallic elements at high temperatures. They are charged ions in them. This convective movement produces a dynamo effect which gives rise to the magnetic field and later, the magnetosphere.This also means another information : If the dynamo shuts down, then the tectonic and seismic activity due to convection of mantle and inner core will stop. You will not get any "Marsquake" or "Venusquake" (like Earthquake) in the planets, except for minor tremors due to impact collisions, tidal activities (solar and lunar), seismic noise due to atmospheric movements etc.,For Venus and Mars, the liquid core solidified with the inner solid core and the internal convections have (almost) stopped. As a consequence, the magnetosphere is very weak. All that is left are remnant magnetic fields that were created by the interaction of solar wind particles with the planet's atmosphere, and crustal magnetic fields produced by magnetic materials that are remnant on the surface. For both Venus and Mars, you still have a very faint magnetosphere. The ions that were produced when the atmospheric molecules interact with the solar wind and cosmic radiation retain the magnetic field and the magnetosphere. These ions are loosely held by the gravitational force of the planets and can escape any second if they receive sufficient amount of kinetic energy to move at escape velocities - either through collisions or through temperature rise due to radiation incidence.For Earth, the core is still active and spinning with a lot of convective action happening in the outer core. This action will die down eventually, and so the magnetosphere will be lost.Some sources say that Venus still has some volcanic activity. This means that there is some amount of tectonic activity present.
How can we terraform Mars? If it does not an geomagnetic field.?
Simple, recognise that it isn't a problem. The gravity on Mars won't be able to hold an atmosphere for more than a few million years and lack of a magnetic field won't do much to worsen the situation so you're going to have to top it up every few million years or so but given how much longer that is compared to how long humans have been around I don't see it as a very big deal deal. As for the innumerate idiots who keep saying that Mars needs a magnetic field to stop radiation, life on Earth gets by just fine when our magnetic field disappears during a reversal (our atmosphere also stays intact during those times) and any breathable atmosphere on Mars is going to be at least 5 tonnes per square metre even if it were pure oxygen (mix some nitrogen in so you don't get a flammable planet and it'll probably end up well above the 10 tonnes per square metre of Earth's atmosphere). You can reduce radiation exposure from cosmic rays to acceptable levels with 5 tonnes per square metre of shielding.
Is there scientific evidence of the possible existence of aliens?
There is no scientifically solid evidence that aliens have visited us. Whether they exist or not, there is only a conjecture that with all the planets in the universe, it would be very unlikely that none of them developed life, but it is just a conjecture. I do believe it, but if one in say, a thousand planets has life, then in all likelihood the nearest is some 50 light years away or more. It is very unlikely that a nearby planet has not only life but with such a technological prowess as to travel and visit us.About the sightings of UFOs, to amount to scientifically sound proof you would have not just to see something and pronounce that you think there is something hard to explain in there, but to make a hypothesis and prove it. No one has elaborated a hypothesis about the aliens that meets the scientific criteria, much less attempted to prove it.As long as we have no science in ufology, we will have just report after report of someone that saw something and cannot or does not want to find a reasonable explanation and then crates a narrative that makes it look like something extraterrestrial happened.A good source for information on how weak the evidence about UFOs is, is Skeptoid Podcast .
What will happen if the core of the Earth cools down?
The Earth's core is indeed cooling down, but it will take billions of years to completely to do so. But what would happen if the core was frozen solid? For one, Earthquakes would not occur, nor would volcanoes be active. It may seem to be a good thing, but for humans and other organisms that utilize minerals, it is a bad thing in the long run. Without a molten core, churning up of minerals, especially to the surface, would not have happened. And this is very crucial. Especially to many human civilizations.But that is not the main problem. Without a molten core, Earth's magnetic field would no longer exist. Without it, the beautiful light streaks (Auroras) seen at the polar region would not exist. That's the least of our problems. The magnetic field acts as a shield to the Earth from harmful radiations, especially those from the sun. We would be burned. The molten core of the Earth is crucial in sustaining life.Thanks for asking, Nganyah. Read this related answer too.
What will happen first, the sun burns out or earth burns from the sun?
The question is effectively self-contradictory, since the generally accepted scientific profile for the 'life-cycle' of a star (like our Sun), includes a 'red-giant' phase, which would incinerate Earth long before the 'death of the Sun' was completed. However, in practical terms, a far more likely 'apocalyptic scenario', which might well play out in the very near future (a few hundred thousand years from now or less), would be a 'Geomagnetic reversal', during which a dramatically compromised 'magnetic cocoon' would leave our atmosphere vulnerable to 'burn-off' by solar-wind (a phenomenon some scientists believe may have been responsible for stripping away a primordial atmosphere on Mars).
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming a Pseudo-Scientific Fraud?
Anthropogenic Global Warming - Climate Change as a result of human activity. I once believed in this and Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", but the tables have turned. We need to seriously ask ourselves this: Is global warming a Pseudo-Scientific Fraud? *Climategate resulted in the disclosure of scientist's communications indicating that their temperature estimates were deliberately fraudulent in order to make it seem like the world is warming. *Cap-and-trade policies would make billions for billionaires like...surprise surprise...AL GORE and other elitists. Cap-and-trade is also not a tax, it is licensing. It says that Al Gore owns the air and we have to get a license to use it. In short, privatization of the air. The air, which has always been public and free, is now a controlled entity we need permission to use. Think of the arrogance!! http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/1475... *Sunspots cause fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. More sunspots=higher temperatures. The Medieval Warm period was a result of this and the mini ice ages were a result of dearths of sunspots. This is a proven science. There is no science behind Global Warming, only an anecdote about a child from grade school who said "did they ever fit together?" WATCH GORE'S MOVIE AGAIN and you'll see that he never produces evidence connecting CO2, a gas which is a minority of the atmosphere, with Global Warming. All he does is show dramatic proof of climate change, which is undeniable. Webster Tarpley put it very accurately. "Remember the Nazi's, they had 'race science', 'race hygiene.' They claimed that Aryan blood is different from any other kind of blood" "Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Pseudo-Scientific Fraud and it should be rejected" SO, what we need to ask ourselves is "Is this really science or is it a Pseudo-Scientific fraud designed to rob the people with cap-and-trade air privatization and excessive carbon taxes?" And you people at Yahoo Answers have tried to delete this perfectly acceptable post about a dozen times now. When will you stop violating the 1st Amendment rights of free humanity? Note: if you're here to comment on my nationality, turn around and walk the other way.
Why do people lack the imagination to theorize that Mars could have had advanced life at one point?
“Why do people lack the imagination to theorize that Mars could have had advanced life at one point?”You are going to need to define who you are referring to by “people.” If you���re talking about your average Joe, then people do have the imagination. Just look at sci-if novels, and it is littered with the idea of Martians.If you’re referring to scientists as the people, then the reasoning behind it is that scientists (should) put their reasoning in a theory based on having evidence.Scientists have imaginations, and it’s that imagination that has let us get to the point in science that we are now. However, all of their theories are based on evidence, and the evidence of living creatures on Mars isn’t sufficient enough to make the claim that life existed on Mars.This doesn’t mean that those scientists think that there will never be evidence of life existing on Mars in the past, just that there isn’t any now. The more of Mars we are able to explore, the more knowledge we will be able to gather about Mars’ pass, and in that, there may be evidence of life once existing on Mars, although it would most likely be plants, or basic animals, similar to those of Earth’s early years of life, because Mars has been a desolate desert for billions of years.