Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 167 of 167
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Why has water stayed liquid on Earth?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    carbon is only versatile in that it readily engages into a multitude of bonds with various elements
    there is no indication whatsoever that the elemental properties of carbon have changed since the beginning of time
    Ok carbon might not itself change, but it does go into bonds with other elements to create change. The process we use to make the date measurements involve carbon, I am asking, can we use the same carbon to date itself? there is a part of me that will not cross this point, I cannot see how we can do that if we cannot confirm that carbon was like that in the begining.
    No, we do not use C14 dating for older dates. That method is only used for organic material that is less then ~50,000 years old. There are a number of other Radiometric dating techniques which use radioactive decay to measure older materials.

    Thus saying "carbon could have changed, so we shouldn't trust the age dates of the earth" is not a viable statement.
    No, we do not use C14 dating for older dates. That method is only used for organic material that is less then ~50,000 years old. There are a number of other Radiometric dating techniques which use radioactive decay to measure older materials.



    For my own understanding I can accept this version of your truths better than just willy nilly measuring with element we cannot put markers on.

    I am looking at the varification process and since I can only see these measurement on a window of time perspective, I am having a little trouble with the specific time that is given for these events.
    What do you mean by "put markers on"?
    As far as I understand using measuring concepts, one has to know what type of measurment one is aiming for and what can be done with the data. If I do not have an authentic starting point or lets say a solid point of reference the resulting data will be limited to the point of reference used. In order for a measurement to be made I have to use a marker to signify that point of reference. If you start just anywhere the results will be anything.


    I am not really saying that using different types or methods of elements will give wrong results, but it must be related to the point where the measurement is starting. Everything has its own begining and end if that point can be identified as stable then "bingo" we can be definitive. I sometimes refer to angle of perception and the responce I get is all over the place. The angle of perception is simply saying the point of observation, from what angle am I seeing what I see, or measure and so on. The totality of any phenomenon is out of humans reach, it does not make a difference if we chose matter or spirit, there is always something we are not taking into consideration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    To be honest it sounds like you dont have a solid grasp of how radiometric dating works at all, and have added in steps from some other process to cover.

    Do you understand how radioactive decay works?

    That is the starting point. it is not an arbitrary random starting point but a specific set group of decay rates for the isotopes that are being measured.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    As far as I understand using measuring concepts, one has to know what type of measurment one is aiming for and what can be done with the data. If I do not have an authentic starting point or lets say a solid point of reference the resulting data will be limited to the point of reference used.
    In radiocarbon dating, the starting point is defined by the relative level of carbon isotopes at the time the organism died. There are various indirect ways of estimating this. There are also direct measurements that can be made (e.g. from ice cores). These can be used to cross-check one another.

    After that it just depends on the decay rate which is absolutely predictable.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14
    Temperature and gravity. On the moon, any surface water would evaporate and leak off into space because of weak gravity (on the dark side there would be ice.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    Temperature and gravity. On the moon, any surface water would evaporate and leak off into space because of weak gravity (on the dark side there would be ice.)
    (My bold). What dark side are you referring to here? The dark side that faces us during a new moon and faces away from us during a full moon? Why would ice form, if the water evaporated when the sun illuminated the surface? The whole surface of the moon gets the Sun over the course of a month.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    ... The whole surface of the moon gets the Sun over the course of a month.
    One tiny correction, there are craters on the moon where the sun never shines, and the temperature of one near the moon's south pole is estimated to be minus 238 degrees C.

    Aside from that, yes, you got it, when the sun hits the moon, the water exits the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    Temperature and gravity. On the moon, any surface water would evaporate and leak off into space because of weak gravity (on the dark side there would be ice.)
    (My bold). What dark side are you referring to here? The dark side that faces us during a new moon and faces away from us during a full moon? Why would ice form, if the water evaporated when the sun illuminated the surface? The whole surface of the moon gets the Sun over the course of a month.
    Good point!!! I guess I was referring to the Pink Floyd album "Dark Side of the Moon." You're right. That's why there's no water or ice on the surface of the moon , although NASA claims there's lots of water under the surface. They say they slammed a missile into the moon a couple years ago and that it proved there was water under the surface. (There could be a little surface ice in a crater somewhere, if the sun didn't hit it.)

    What I'd like to know is why the moon always has the same side facing the earth. Moons of other planets don't do that. And how did the moon form? The only two theories that hold water are that god created it, or that aliens dragged it there. The scientific theory is that earth got hit by a meteor and and chunk of earth flew off and became the moon. Even if that were true, why would it orbit the earth with the same side facing earth? And if a chunk of earth went flying off, it would eventually fall back to earth because it wouldn't have orbital velocity. And something powerful enough to knock off a piece 1/6 the size of earth would probably knock the earth out of orbit.
    Last edited by sanchezal28; August 9th, 2012 at 10:40 AM. Reason: added something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Look up "Tidal Locking"

    And a number of moons in the solar system are tidally locked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Look up "Tidal Locking"

    And a number of moons in the solar system are tidally locked.
    Thanks for the info.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    What I'd like to know is why the moon always has the same side facing the earth. Moons of other planets don't do that.
    Yes, they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    And how did the moon form? The only two theories that hold water are that god created it, or that aliens dragged it there.
    Excuse me?

    You strike me as someone who likes to make assertions, but doesn't actually know what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    The scientific theory is that earth got hit by a meteor and and chunk of earth flew off and became the moon. Even if that were true, why would it orbit the earth with the same side facing earth? And if a chunk of earth went flying off, it would eventually fall back to earth because it wouldn't have orbital velocity. And something powerful enough to knock off a piece 1/6 the size of earth would probably knock the earth out of orbit.
    You obviously have a lot to learn, and yet in that other thread you claim you were a rocket scientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    PM

    The Earth was probably hit by a small planet about 4.5 billion years ago, and the moon is one consequence. There is no evidence of such a smash later (apart from smaller scale hits by meteorites, and the odd asteroid).

    We do not need any such mechanism to explain tectonic activity. The mix of slow cooling, and the addition of heat inside the Earth from nuclear fission is sufficient explanation.

    If I am not mistaken, the Moon orbited very closely to the Earth for a very long time after it had formed. Whereas now we get ocean tides from its orbits, it likely would have caused flexing of a more fundamental nature back when it was closer. Even now the Moon is "tidally locked" to the Earth, indicating that the flexing it experienced due to the Earth was so severe that it forced its spin to be synchronized to its orbit. The effect on Earth would have been less (since we are not tidally locked to the Moon), but probably still noticeable.

    Anyway, tidal flexing can cause volcanism. At least if it's an extreme enough case. A very severe example would be IO getting flexed by its orbit around Jupiter.


    Io (moon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The tidal flexing of the earth by the moon is vastly insufficient to initiate vulcanism.
    Even if the moon were a lot closer?

    At it its present position there is still a small correlation between lunar cycles and some earthquakes. Note that the link I'm posting here is to debunk the idea of the Supermoon on May 5 destroying the world - but the expert who is questioned in the article still states that the effect of lunar cycles on earthquakes is non-zero.


    Saturday's 'Supermoon' Won't Destroy Earth : Discovery News
    Quote Originally Posted by John Vidale in the article
    According to John Vidale, a seismologist at the University of Washington in Seattle and director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, particularly dramatic land and ocean tides do occasionally trigger earthquakes. "Both the moon and sun do stress the Earth a tiny bit, and when we look hard we can see a very small increase in tectonic activity when they're aligned," Vidale told Life's Little Mysteries during the furor surrounding last year's supermoon.
    At times of full and new moons, "you see a less-than-1-percent increase in earthquake activity, and a slightly higher response in volcanoes," he said.



    With the Moon closer, the gravitational influence would be greater, and it would be making more frequent orbits.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14
    @speedfreek

    "You obviously have a lot to learn, and yet in that other thread you claim you were a rocket scientist."

    I WAS a rocket scientist. Since when do rocket scientists know everything? Maybe you can help me and others by telling me what I need to learn!!! Otherwise your post is pointless in that it offers no new information, only a lame opinion as to my character and intellect.

    I just learned that moons often revolve around a planet at the same rate they rotate due to "tidal locking." I heard that 30 years ago as being called gravitational harmonics, which is a hard concept to grasp, which obviously makes me stupid. At least I admit it.

    I AM STUPID - SO SHOOT ME - OR GIVE ME THE INFORMATION I AM LACKING.

    (maybe you need to cut down on the speed - just a thought)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    The only problem I have is when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about makes statements or assertions, such as your assertion that "other moons don't do that", when in fact the majority of them do. Or that there is no use for a parachute on Mars, when there is.

    Why not ask questions about the information you are lacking, rather than making statements based on information you are lacking?

    Oh, and my assertions that your being a rocket scientist is a hoax are just as baseless as your assertions that Curiosity on Mars has been faked... see where I am coming from now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Seems to me you are confusing dubious science with a lack of understanding of that science on your part. I've heard three primary theories on the origin of the Moon and none of them involve God or aliens.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sanchezal28 View Post
    @speedfreek

    "You obviously have a lot to learn, and yet in that other thread you claim you were a rocket scientist."

    I WAS a rocket scientist. Since when do rocket scientists know everything? Maybe you can help me and others by telling me what I need to learn!!! Otherwise your post is pointless in that it offers no new information, only a lame opinion as to my character and intellect.

    I just learned that moons often revolve around a planet at the same rate they rotate due to "tidal locking." I heard that 30 years ago as being called gravitational harmonics, which is a hard concept to grasp, which obviously makes me stupid. At least I admit it.

    I AM STUPID - SO SHOOT ME - OR GIVE ME THE INFORMATION I AM LACKING.

    (maybe you need to cut down on the speed - just a thought)
    I think you'll find on this forum that nobody is expert enough to never be contradicted (some perhaps get contradicted less than others.) If someone contradicts you you should just let it go. Ask for a reference or something, because odds are they're right and you'll learn something by doing so.


    As for tidally locking, a fine example (back when it was still considered a planet) would be Pluto and Charon, which are both tidally locked to each other. It happens if the planets/moons were once hot enough that their whole body could flex the way the ocean tides on Earth flex, and and over time resistance to that flexing slows down their rate of spin until it's equal to their rate of orbit around the body that causes those tides.

    Pluto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Meteorwayne or Speedfreek could probably explain it better.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    It's not necessary that the moon be all fluid either. Even the flexing of "solid" crust is enough to move momentum around....It is still occuring in the Earth-Moon system, causing the moon to very slowly spiral away from earth, and over vast time scales reducing the libration (rocking back and forth of the lunar side that faces us).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wuerzburg, Bavaria, Germany
    Posts
    160
    don't know if anybody already mentioned it there is a wiki article about that Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    life had statistically better chance of appearing in the relatively enormous volume of water orbiting our sun before Earth as we know it existed
    Youre in good company: Fred Hoyle (Nucleosynthesis in Suns) seems to be the originator of the idea that lifes origin is somewhere in free fall. (I wont say space since earth is in space.)

    There is no proof that life originated in a gravity high environment like a planet. I dont even think theres is evidence for it, the reason why almost everybody assumes lifes origin was on a planet is that there actually is life on at least one planet.

    I dont care to scrutinize the thread, but my guess is that you were totally ignored by all.

    Your idea has merits: The first thing coming to my mind is that on a planet its difficult to keep the essential ingrediences to form life together... they easily gets diluted... Suppose all ingrediences of life are close together in an earthly ocean then whats preventing them from diffunding ... loosing contact with each other?

    In free fall, water is found as a multitude of drops (if heat and pressure is right) and each drop can hold the ingredients of life for a sufficiently long time for forming an embryo of life. And given the high number of drops Life seems inevitable! A zillion of drops makes a better laboratory than one ocean, I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    There are other positives to an earthly environment. Pools of water can become isolated, then concentrated through evaporation. Various substrates are available to aid in aligning molecues (clay).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    There are other positives to an earthly environment. Pools of water can become isolated, then concentrated through evaporation. Various substrates are available to aid in aligning molecues (clay).
    It was not my intention to say its impossible that life on earth originated on earth, its just that its seems more likely in my eyes that life originated in free fall and seeded earth. Also that I find it strange that science treats the matter as if it already is decided! Where is the scientific objectivity? Where is the honest testing of the hypothesis that life may arise in free fall? What is the ratio on words written on the assumption that life has an earthly origin to words written on the assumption that life has a free fall origin?
    Is it less or more than 100000:1?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Since there's no evidence that itoriginated in "free fall" (exactly what you mean by that is not clear), the burden is on those that propose the idea to provide some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Since there's no evidence that itoriginated in "free fall" (exactly what you mean by that is not clear), the burden is on those that propose the idea to provide some.
    Wait there! Evidence is not proof is it? Then whats this talk of burden?
    You mean its sure that lifes origin was on earth?
    You mean life cannot have its origin not on a planet?
    When we dont know if x or not x then we have to research both possibilities!
    Please prove that to refuse research of a possibility is not prejudice.

    PS Lets see some of your "unbiased" evidence then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Since there's no evidence that itoriginated in "free fall" (exactly what you mean by that is not clear), the burden is on those that propose the idea to provide some.
    Wait there! Evidence is not proof is it? Then whats this talk of burden?
    You mean its sure that lifes origin was on earth?
    No, but it is under investigation by many teams with a number of plausible and realistic scenarios.
    You mean life cannot have its origin not on a planet?
    No, but you have yet to provide a realistic mechanism
    When we dont know if x or not x then we have to research both possibilities!
    Yes plenty of research on earth, not so much on free fall.
    Please prove that to refuse research of a possibility is not prejudice.
    It's your idea. Show me the research on the "free fall" side. Any research. Even yours.
    PS Lets see some of your "unbiased" evidence then.
    Rather than type out all thye current research, look here: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There are about 110 references for folluwup after you've read beginning at "Current Models"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Hi MeteorWayne! Please accept that Im not accusing YOU personally of bias or prejudice.
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    I cant understand why they think so, and will be happt to learn why,say, YOU think so.

    I have read about abiogenesis before and forgotten all about it... I suspect it is the hypothesis that life comes from some other planet than earth.Right? The thought I find plausible is that life does NOT origin in any high gravity environment... Im not sure I have the definition exact: I mean IN space but not ON a planet. Ive seen ideas on how life may arise ,self organization and autocatalysis comes to mind... but theres no evidence that the processes only occur on planets! I guess nearly all evidence for life that applies on planets apply equally well for free fall in space...EXCEPT large oceans,sediments and high gravity.

    Do you know what "Hoyles Fallacy" is? And who Fred Hoyle was?Its an Ad Hominem as despiccable as it can get! To treat the originator of the theory of nucleosynthesis so disrespectfully as to name a supposed fallacy after him hurts my sensibilities... Ill go exercise some steam off my system before I write more on the subject! (IBB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    Not entirely. There is a lot of (mainstream) research on the possibility that organic precursors to life originated in space and arrived on, say, meteorites. This is because there is lots of evidence for complex organic molecules in space. Of course, there is no reason that the same or similar molecules would not also occur on Earth.

    One problem with life (rather than just chemistry) arriving on Earth is the extreme conditions it would have to survive. Another problem is the apparent lack of necessity (Occam's razor).

    The thought I find plausible is that life does NOT origin in any high gravity environment
    Why do you think gravity would be relevant? Especially as the first forms of life were likely to have been single cells.

    I guess nearly all evidence for life that applies on planets apply equally well for free fall in space
    Apart from things like low temperature, lack of water, lack of an atmosphere, intense sterilising radiation, etc.

    Do you know what "Hoyles Fallacy" is? And who Fred Hoyle was?Its an Ad Hominem as despiccable as it can get![B] To treat the originiator of the theory of nucleosynthesis so disrespectfully as to name a supposed fallacy after him hurts my sensibilities...
    That sounds like an argument from authority; another well known fallacy.

    Just because Hoyle did some good work in one field does not mean we have to treat everything he says with equal respect. Especially when he talked nonsense about a subject he appeared to know almost nothing about. Naming a fallacy after this particularly idiotic statement seems entirely reasonable. It is not an ad hominem because it is not an attack on him, it is using his argument as a prototypical example of bad science.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Hi MeteorWayne! Please accept that Im not accusing YOU personally of bias or prejudice.
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    I cant understand why they think so, and will be happt to learn why,say, YOU think so.

    I have read about abiogenesis before and forgotten all about it...
    Apparently, including what it means. That's why I included the link I did. There's a hundred current papers on the subject there. It's how life may have formed on Earth
    I suspect it is the hypothesis that life comes from some other planet than earth.Right?
    No, that's panspermia Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [

    The thought I find plausible is that life does NOT origin in any high gravity environment... Im not sure I have the definition exact: I mean IN space but not ON a planet. Ive seen ideas on how life may arise ,self organization and autocatalysis comes to mind... but theres no evidence that the processes only occur on planets! I guess nearly all evidence for life that applies on planets apply equally well for free fall in space...EXCEPT large oceans,sediments and high gravity.
    Space is a very harsh environment. Easy to form molecules, but due to radiation, very hard to keep the same ones together for a long period.
    Not impossible, but I know of no hypothesis that can explain what you speculate about... and it is a subject I follow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    Not entirely. There is a lot of (mainstream) research on the possibility that organic precursors to life originated in space and arrived on, say, meteorites. This is because there is lots of evidence for complex organic molecules in space. Of course, there is no reason that the same or similar molecules would not also occur on Earth.

    One problem with life (rather than just chemistry) arriving on Earth is the extreme conditions it would have to survive. Another problem is the apparent lack of necessity (Occam's razor).
    Lets apply Occams razor on itself and leave it out of the discussion unless we need it
    Now that youve mentioned that "space is a harsh mistress" then why not draw the conclusion
    that settlers of earth coming from space were extremophiles?
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    The thought I find plausible is that life does NOT origin in any high gravity environment
    Why do you think gravity would be relevant? Especially as the first forms of life were likely to have been single cells.
    The first thought that comes to mind is the fact that its easier for molecules, formed by joining a molecule loving water with another that hates water, to form a membrane at the border of a drop than the border of an ocean. In the regions of space where water is neither "earth nor air"(a joke!) then its in the form of drops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    I guess nearly all evidence for life that applies on planets apply equally well for free fall in space
    Apart from things like low temperature, lack of water, lack of an atmosphere, intense sterilising radiation, etc.
    Not very funny. You seem to not know much of the conditions in the primeordeal cloud that became our solar system. I suggest you google a little on that.
    Let me refine the hypothesis you force me to defend by playing ignorant:

    Every primeordeal cloud destined to become a solar system
    will in the process produce life before any planets are fully formed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Do you know what "Hoyles Fallacy" is? And who Fred Hoyle was? Its an Ad Hominem as despiccable as it can get![B] To treat the originiator of the theory of nucleosynthesis so disrespectfully as to name a supposed fallacy after him hurts my sensibilities...
    That sounds like an argument from authority; another well known fallacy.

    Just because Hoyle did some good work in one field does not mean we have to treat everything he says with equal respect. Especially when he talked nonsense about a subject he appeared to know almost nothing about. Naming a fallacy after this particularly idiotic statement seems entirely reasonable. It is not an ad hominem because it is not an attack on him, it is using his argument as a prototypical example of bad science.
    IF you dont understand that it is morally wrong to name a fallacy after Fred Hoyle
    THEN you are morally deficient. Let it stop with that. I will not discuss that matter further.
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 14th, 2012 at 06:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    IF you dont understand that it is morally wrong to name a fallacy after Fred Hoyle
    THEN you are morally deficient.
    Nice of you to say so.

    IF you can't understand why it isn't (and that he spouted ignorant nonsense) THEN you are a twat.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Hi MeteorWayne! Please accept that Im not accusing YOU personally of bias or prejudice.
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    I cant understand why they think so, and will be happt to learn why,say, YOU think so.

    I have read about abiogenesis before and forgotten all about it...
    Apparently, including what it means. That's why I included the link I did. There's a hundred current papers on the subject there. It's how life may have formed on Earth
    I suspect it is the hypothesis that life comes from some other planet than earth.Right?
    No, that's panspermia Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [

    The thought I find plausible is that life does NOT origin in any high gravity environment... Im not sure I have the definition exact: I mean IN space but not ON a planet. Ive seen ideas on how life may arise ,self organization and autocatalysis comes to mind... but theres no evidence that the processes only occur on planets! I guess nearly all evidence for life that applies on planets apply equally well for free fall in space...EXCEPT large oceans,sediments and high gravity.
    Space is a very harsh environment. Easy to form molecules, but due to radiation, very hard to keep the same ones together for a long period.
    Not impossible, but I know of no hypothesis that can explain what you speculate about... and it is a subject I follow.
    Aha! Then apparently I mistook abiogenesis for exobiogenesis!

    And neither I, know of any serious attempts to explain how life can arise previous to planets!

    I am nothing but an amateur on the sciences needed to enquire into the hypothesis.

    It is shameful for real scientists to attack me instead of supporting by:
    Honest criticism and independent attempts to clear up the difficulties.

    Mind you: Im not claiming somebody IS attacking!

    And since I enjoy arguments: Feel free to attack. I will NOT complain to the Moderators!
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 14th, 2012 at 06:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    IF you dont understand that it is morally wrong to name a fallacy after Fred Hoyle
    THEN you are morally deficient.
    Nice of you to say so.

    IF you can't understand why it isn't (and that he spouted ignorant nonsense) THEN you are a twat.
    He he! Well then you must be the one who brought the matter to my attention.(Thanx for that!)
    Naturally you want to defend your overstepping of the boundary to indecency.
    Like a husband trying to hide infidelity

    We could argue this forever but I think you are a decent sort of fellow, so Im not interested in defending claims that you are morally defect. Your reaction shows that you are able to see the the difference between right and wrong.

    What exactly did Hoyle say that was "spouting ignorant nonsence"?
    I mean: lets discuss matters of fact instead of moral nonsense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Naturally you want to defend your overstepping of the boundary to indecency.
    I don't know what boundary you think I overstepped. I was simply pointing out that a reference to "Hoyle's fallacy" (which you brought up) is not an ad hominem (because it is not an attack on him or anyone else) and that your claim that is was appeared to be an appeal to authority (another well-known fallacy).

    I'm sure there are Nobel prize winners who have committed criminal acts. Just because someone achieves something in one field doesn't make them absolutely correct in any other. Hoyle's beliefs, lack of knowledge and poor logic with regard to a field he had no expertise in should be challenged as thoroughly as anyone else's.

    In fact, challenged as rigorously as his work in astrophysics. Notably, his work in astrophysics was validated by being challenged. His claims about evolution just made him a laughing stock. That's the way it goes.

    What exactly did Hoyle say that was "spouting ignorant nonsence"?
    So you brought it up, and you defended it, without even knowing what it is?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    What exactly did Hoyle say that was "spouting ignorant nonsence"?
    So you brought it up, and you defended it, without even knowing what it is?
    I am not aware of any fallacy done by Hoyle! He was arrogant (Eh... BTW: Did he win any Nobelprize?) and wasnt afraid of challenging authority! I suppose he wasnt very liked. Wasnt he actually being outfrozen by the establishment?

    I suppose his descendants are not so comfortable to admit their ancestry: Yes he invented nucleosynthesis but that must have been pure luck, since according to his peers he was an ignorant: they even named a fallacy after him!

    I want YOU to tell us what HE,according to YOU, was saying that was fallacious!

    All I see is an honest scientist being ridiculed...
    I am aware he wasnt always betting on the winning horse but he did not forge his tickets.

    Did he, by any chance, declare that life in general occurs before planets are fully formed?
    Is that idea "Hoyles fallacy"? If not, then what is it? Why wont you tell?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,488
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    I am not aware of any fallacy done by Hoyle!
    Then why did you bring it into the discussion?

    I suppose he wasnt very liked. Wasnt he actually being outfrozen by the establishment?
    Actually, I think he was very well liked and admired. Both as a person as a physicist. He and LeMaitre were particularly good friends (and drinking buddies).

    Yes he invented nucleosynthesis but that must have been pure luck, since according to his peers he was an ignorant: they even named a fallacy after him!
    You don't get it do you? One can do great work in one area (where on has great expertise) and still make silly comments about another subject.

    Being an expert in one area doesn't make you infallible. Making silly comments about a subject you don't know about doesn't invalidate your expertise.

    I want YOU to tell us what HE,according to YOU, was saying that was fallacious!
    Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane.
    It goes on to say:
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    Similar observations predate Hoyle, and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time.
    So maybe he was just unlucky to get his name associated with it. Or maybe he put it more eloquently than most. Or maybe he was unfortunate enough to be talking just as TV became popular.

    All I see is an honest scientist being ridiculed...
    NO ONE IS RIDICULING HOYLE. What the heck is wrong with you.

    Did he, by any chance, declare that life in general occurs before planets are fully formed?
    I have no idea.

    Why wont you tell?
    As you brought it up, I assumed you knew. Silly me. Actually, until you brought it up, I didn't even know it had his name associated with it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    32
    This one seems to have got a bit heated, so I'm going to step in here and hopefully help to resolve it. Earth lies in a region that scientists call 'the Goldilocks zone', which is where it is neither to cold to freeze the water, not too hot for it to evaporate (so roughly 0-100 degress centegrade). None of the other planets in our solar systems are in this zone, so that is why there is no life (so far) on them.

    People will ask why is it in the goldilocks zone then? Well, if it wasn't we wouldn't exist, is science's usually answer, but I have given this a little bit more thought and come up with Eddison's Equilibrium (which I will publish in a more fleshed out form elsewhere), but essentially, if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity), which cools it down meaning the evaporated water falls as snow and rain (the water cycle) and freezes, into ice and water, so the earth gets heavier and moves back nearer to the sun. The percentages involved in this are tiny (about 0.000001% difference), but it is probably enough to keep us in the Goldilocks zone indefinitely.

    I wasn't going to publish this here, but when I read about Hoyle, i thought how often great scientists are not in the majority, perhaps people should consider this before deciding which view to take in an argument based on the numbers of the people arguing on each side!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity),
    You might want to think this through a bit more before you spend too much time on it.

    When water evaporates from the earth's surface it goes into the atmosphere. The total mass of the earth's core-surface-atmosphere does not change. The only way it could, would be if the water managed to escape from the top of the atmosphere into space.

    But we know that doesn't happen. Evaporated water condenses back as precipitation within 5 to 8 days. And it barely gets off the ground - let alone escaping from the top of the atmosphere.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    It is shameful for real scientists to attack me instead of supporting by:
    Honest criticism and independent attempts to clear up the difficulties.
    There are no difficulties. You've posted an idea that has no evidence at all and seem peeved that no one is rushing off to examine it.

    Science does not mean examining every half-baked idea someone comes up with.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom
    Eddison's Equilibrium
    Hilarious! How long have you been working on that? Adelady has destroyed it by employing rudimentary physics. How could you possibly be so presumptuous? If you like you can present your case in the New Hypothesis and Ideas section. That is what it is for. Don't use other people's threads for it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It is shameful for real scientists to attack me instead of supporting by:
    Honest criticism and independent attempts to clear up the difficulties.
    There are no difficulties. You've posted an idea that has no evidence at all and seem peeved that no one is rushing off to examine it.

    Science does not mean examining every half-baked idea someone comes up with.
    You havent heard theres lots of amino acids in primordeal clouds?
    The frozen water in solar space all the way out into the Oort cloud contains organics.
    Now you tell me: What are those evidence for?

    Where did you get the half-baked idea that there is no evidence for my hypothesis?

    And then you say there are no difficulties...What a surprise: This means that you claim
    there are no difficulties involved in the idea that lifes origin is in free fall! I thought you were
    against the idea?

    You say:"You...seem peeved that no one is rushing off to examine it."
    Oh no! I can manage on my own thank you.
    What you dont understand is the (implied) conclusion that there are no scientists in here

    I think I can insult you as much as I wish without you noticing...
    (Unless the Mods get angry with innuendoes.)

    PS You know what Fred Hoyle said when he heard about them acids in the sky?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    The frozen water in solar space all the way out into the Oort cloud contains organics.
    Now you tell me: What are those evidence for?
    Chemistry.

    Let's just examine something briefly. How do the various chemical precursors to organic life (which is all that's been found in cometary clouds) manage to get together and combine when they're in a frozen, crystaline matrix? There is no point in space where liquid water can exist. It is either frozen, or in a highly diffuse gas cloud. So what brings the precursors together, where do they get the energy to combine?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post

    You've posted an idea that has no evidence at all .
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    life had statistically better chance of appearing
    in the relatively enormous volume of water orbiting our sun before Earth as we know it existed
    Hi!
    Ahem...
    Im not saying
    you understand
    what the quotation of Pong
    has to do with your text above.
    I leave it for you as an exercise.
    Are my sentences now too long and complicated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity),
    You might want to think this through a bit more before you spend too much time on it.

    When water evaporates from the earth's surface it goes into the atmosphere. The total mass of the earth's core-surface-atmosphere does not change. The only way it could, would be if the water managed to escape from the top of the atmosphere into space.

    But we know that doesn't happen. Evaporated water condenses back as precipitation within 5 to 8 days. And it barely gets off the ground - let alone escaping from the top of the atmosphere.
    And keep thinking. In addition to what adelady says, the mass of the earth makes no difference in where it orbits anyway. It would not move out if it got lighter. Simple Gravity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    So you really think that a quote from another poster is any kind of evidence?

    Does Pong address the fact that the 'water' was in a frozen state? Perhaps he could supply his statistical analysis, which lets him make that statement?

    Was that last sentence too long for you?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Eddison View Post
    This one seems to have got a bit heated, so I'm going to step in here and hopefully help to resolve it. Earth lies in a region that scientists call 'the Goldilocks zone', which is where it is neither to cold to freeze the water, not too hot for it to evaporate (so roughly 0-100 degress centegrade). None of the other planets in our solar systems are in this zone, so that is why there is no life (so far) on them.

    People will ask why is it in the goldilocks zone then? Well, if it wasn't we wouldn't exist, is science's usually answer, but I have given this a little bit more thought and come up with Eddison's Equilibrium (which I will publish in a more fleshed out form elsewhere), but essentially, if earth gets too hot the water evaporates and so earth gets lighter (rememer 3/4s of the surface is water) so it orbits the sun slightly further out (simple gravity), which cools it down meaning the evaporated water falls as snow and rain (the water cycle) and freezes, into ice and water, so the earth gets heavier and moves back nearer to the sun. The percentages involved in this are tiny (about 0.000001% difference), but it is probably enough to keep us in the Goldilocks zone indefinitely.

    I wasn't going to publish this here, but when I read about Hoyle, i thought how often great scientists are not in the majority, perhaps people should consider this before deciding which view to take in an argument based on the numbers of the people arguing on each side!
    Let me know when you get published and in what publication. I'll be waiting with baited breath.
    sigurdW likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    So you really think that a quote from another poster is any kind of evidence?

    Does Pong address the fact that the 'water' was in a frozen state? Perhaps he could supply his statistical analysis, which lets him make that statement?

    Was that last sentence too long for you?
    No. The quote only proves ít was not me introducing the idea in here. (As you seem to think.)
    All I did was picking up the idea to see what your reaction would be if I held it right under your noses.

    And dont you claim I cant count long noses, yours isnt the only one.

    So what is the organics in the frozen water in space evidence for?
    I invite you to choose between three possibilities:

    1 Evidence for life, in our galaxy.
    2 Evidence for life, in our solar system
    3 Evidence for life on earth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    4 Evidence for organic molecules in space.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    4 Evidence for organic molecules in space.
    Sorry but youre wrong! (But the answer shows some wit!)
    The difference between evidence and proof is sometimes not understood:
    Organic molecules in space PROVES there are organic molecules in space.
    Actually I only bother considering evidence to be polite to ...eh...
    cant remember what they should forumly correctly be called...to anyone concerned!
    I always go for proof! Evidence is for weaklings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    So how did life begin out there in space?

    Lets see a description on how it could have started on earth! Hopefully all we have to do is some rewriting...
    The large body of water becomes an incredible huge collection of drops of water mixed with organics:


    "Let's take a look at prebiogenesis (as I like to think of it), or as archeo-organic chemistry. Have you heard this reasoning before?

    Assume a very large body of water, comprising those terrestial regions where depth is less than 10 meters, along coastlines. Assume massive amounts of solutes from lava-water interaction, and volcanic dusts. Assume massive amounts of ammonia, CO2, N2, Sulpher in various guises, many acidic. Assume large temperature (thermal) fluctuations, lightning bolts, solar radiation, and cosmic radiation due to lack of ozone. In other words, "Soup" Assume a lot of Time.

    We know from experiments that a virtually unlimited variety of carbon compounds will eventually result out of this Soup. Many species of molecule will be relatively common, other rare. Consider that we have a huge number of "test tubes" available for natural chemistry experiments: hidden coves, caves, mudflats, tidal flats, beach zones, pools, lakes, etc. The Earth is a big place, so 10 to the 10th power of cubic-meter sized "test-tubes" is plausible. Let the average lifetime of each "test-tube" be a year, so in a billion years, we have 10^19 chemistry experiments.

    We are concerned only with experiments where molecules of a minimum size can form; say an atomic weight of 100,000. that would be around approx 7,000 to 10,000 Carbon atoms in the molecule. Naturally, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, with traces of iron, sulfur and phosphorus would make up the rest, since those are the most common.

    What we are looking for is NOT "life". We are looking for chemical reactions that reproduce molecules. For example, A + B + C + energy => D + E.
    But E + 2F + energy => 2B + G. As you can see by inspection, the molecule B (whatever it is) will tend to multiply. There may be other reactions going on that destroy B, but if over time the average production per cycle is > 1, then B will multiply.

    However, if B's average percentage of all chems changes that much, then we have changed the chemical environment, and now we have a "different" experiment, that enables (or retards) other reactions. Even in one "test tube" (a cubic meter of Soup) we would not be surprised to see that every time we visited it, the "recipe" in that test tube has changed, perhaps drastically.

    Over Time (big T, millions of years) what we're going to see is that there are a large number (billions?) of molecules that are favored. They will be in cyclical reactions that produce them much faster than they die off. They probably play a role in many of those reactions, such that the greater the presence of B, the faster B is produced. up to a point of course.

    The presence of so many concentrated species of molecules is constantly changing the landscape of both chemistry and environment. As this occurs, the average molecular weight of the dominate species also increases. More complexity and more complex reactions become possible. All it takes is more Time for a species of molecule to arrive on the scene that directly makes (near) copies of itself. For example:
    J + 10K + 22L + 16M + 4 N => 2J + 32P + 8Q + 8R
    Here, J would be the first proto-RNA molecule.

    "J" would spread all over the Earth, using many if not most of the 10^19 test tubes. The experiment evolves--and this is the key point. From this time onwards, we are not doing RANDOM experiments, we are doing RANDOM experiments on "J". Progress speeds up. Eventually, we have an experiment where J' is produced much more efficiently than mere J. Or maybe it is less fragile. Or maybe one of its side-effect molecules produced (ie, "8Q") assemble to protect the J'. It takes over, elbowing out the ordinary J.

    Now we have a NEW experiment. 10^18 to 10^19 test tubes using J'.
    Then a NEWER experiment with all those test tubes using J''.
    Side reactions and the environment change as well, until happenstance produces reactions that support/protect/enable J" production, perhaps by producing a "cell wall". Clay has been suggested as a catalyst for this.

    That's as far as I'm going. Or need to. We have a self-reproducing proto-RNA molecule that affects its own environment."

    At the same place where I collected this story theres an opponent...

    Note that his problem is removed if the origin of life happened in SPACE:

    "I appreciate you writing this down. I have heard this before.

    I do understand that this is the core of the prevailing theory for abiogenesis. I do think it appears more than a little bit wishful. Fundamentally, the statistical issue is that the first prokaryotes were pretty complex little creatures. That is, it appears subjectively that the increase in complexity from prokaryote to mammal is smaller than the increase in complexity form inorganic precursor to prokaryote. If we generally accept the 3.5 billion year age for the first prokaryote, and 4.5 billion year age of the planet, we optimistically get maybe 500 million years between adequate earth cooling and water aggregation and the generally-accepted life arrival date. Ancient prokaryotes had not just macromolecules, but organized enzyme systems with product-reactant feedback loops (just like mammals to) organized into physical deployment structures that optimize biochemical throughput.

    I think that if you give youself 10^10 testubes, and put actual DNA bases, RNA bases (heck, throw in the sugars and the phosphates) and amino acids and bufferred the environment at 7.2, we would probably still have trouble getting a self replicating prokaryote in 500 million years in one of the test tubes. You can quibble with this, but this really is problematic. It is really tough to make the math work, given the size of the DNA in a prokaryote.

    I don't have an issue with keeping this alternative open as a option. I just don't default to this model being reasonable.

    Science does often show us surprises (heavens, particle physics comes to mind) so we can't rule your model out. But goodness, it certainly is not a comfortable hypothesis."

    The "sigurdV version" of Genesis:

    My story starts with the beginning of the Stellar Cloud!
    A rather long time ago.
    Where in the early stages the organics began to form on chunks of ice...
    (To be continued)

    (Counting test tubes aint my cup of tea.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I think this should be moved to speculations.

    That's where cranks posters like Sig usually end up.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Sig does need to improve his manners and quit accusing people of being "immoral" or get mad when they show less than adequate respect toward his hero Fred Hoyle. However some of his ideas on this matter are actually very interesting to read.

    If I want to summarize his last post, I think he's suggesting that for life to form you need an environment where some condition is pushing molecules to form in bigger and bigger sizes and clump together. I really don't know where you'd get that on Earth, because all around them there would be simpler chemicals entering the system and disrupting the process.

    On some small meteor out in space, surrounded by a vacuum, the process could just keep moving forward (if it were to begin in the first place.) But the problem is where does the energy come from? If it's near a star, it's probably getting bombarded with radiation. I don't know if maybe the process could still occur at a very low temperature (it just progresses more slowly because it's so cold?)


    No matter where you go in space, even very far away from the nearest star, there's always at least the CMBR hitting you.


    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    Not entirely. There is a lot of (mainstream) research on the possibility that organic precursors to life originated in space and arrived on, say, meteorites. This is because there is lots of evidence for complex organic molecules in space. Of course, there is no reason that the same or similar molecules would not also occur on Earth.

    One problem with life (rather than just chemistry) arriving on Earth is the extreme conditions it would have to survive. Another problem is the apparent lack of necessity (Occam's razor).
    Lets apply Occams razor on itself and leave it out of the discussion unless we need it
    Now that youve mentioned that "space is a harsh mistress" then why not draw the conclusion
    that settlers of earth coming from space were extremophiles?
    Yeah. I didn't go to extremophiles in the first place. Even if we're discussing a terrestrial origin, how do we know they didn't evolve first? Then maybe they wait to migrate to the ocean after it has cooled off a bit (or better yet: after it has formed)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    There are other positives to an earthly environment. Pools of water can become isolated, then concentrated through evaporation. Various substrates are available to aid in aligning molecues (clay).
    Also nice to have a (mostly) pure chemical continually being reintroduced to the system, and grabbing waste materials to take away with it as it leaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Since there's no evidence that itoriginated in "free fall" (exactly what you mean by that is not clear), the burden is on those that propose the idea to provide some.
    I don't think there's a whole lot of solid evidence for any of the theories of abiogenesis, is there? Either all of them have that burden or none of them do. So if you can show that one of them has succeeded, then ok. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to treat this one any more (or less) dismissively than the others.

    I know lots of good research is being done in an attempt to find evidence for the others. However, the burden is not to look for evidence. The burden is to find it.
    sigurdW likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Sig does need to improve his manners and quit accusing people of being "immoral" or get mad when they show less than adequate respect toward his hero Fred Hoyle. However some of his ideas on this matter are actually very interesting to read.

    If I want to summarize his last post, I think he's suggesting that for life to form you need an environment where some condition is pushing molecules to form in bigger and bigger sizes and clump together. I really don't know where you'd get that on Earth, because all around them there would be simpler chemicals entering the system and disrupting the process.

    On some small meteor out in space, surrounded by a vacuum, the process could just keep moving forward (if it were to begin in the first place.) But the problem is where does the energy come from? If it's near a star, it's probably getting bombarded with radiation. I don't know if maybe the process could still occur at a very low temperature (it just progresses more slowly because it's so cold?)


    No matter where you go in space, even very far away from the nearest star, there's always at least the CMBR hitting you.


    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    My point is that close to everybody assumes that lifes origin was on earth!
    Not entirely. There is a lot of (mainstream) research on the possibility that organic precursors to life originated in space and arrived on, say, meteorites. This is because there is lots of evidence for complex organic molecules in space. Of course, there is no reason that the same or similar molecules would not also occur on Earth.

    One problem with life (rather than just chemistry) arriving on Earth is the extreme conditions it would have to survive. Another problem is the apparent lack of necessity (Occam's razor).
    Lets apply Occams razor on itself and leave it out of the discussion unless we need it
    Now that youve mentioned that "space is a harsh mistress" then why not draw the conclusion
    that settlers of earth coming from space were extremophiles?
    Yeah. I didn't go to extremophiles in the first place. Even if we're discussing a terrestrial origin, how do we know they didn't evolve first? Then maybe they wait to migrate to the ocean after it has cooled off a bit (or better yet: after it has formed)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    There are other positives to an earthly environment. Pools of water can become isolated, then concentrated through evaporation. Various substrates are available to aid in aligning molecues (clay).
    Also nice to have a (mostly) pure chemical continually being reintroduced to the system, and grabbing waste materials to take away with it as it leaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Since there's no evidence that itoriginated in "free fall" (exactly what you mean by that is not clear), the burden is on those that propose the idea to provide some.
    I don't think there's a whole lot of solid evidence for any of the theories of abiogenesis, is there? Either all of them have that burden or none of them do. So if you can show that one of them has succeeded, then ok. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to treat this one any more (or less) dismissively than the others.

    I know lots of good research is being done in an attempt to find evidence for the others. However, the burden is not to look for evidence. The burden is to find it.
    Hi! It annoys me that I find nothing to accuse you of!
    Stop that immediately, or I have to admit theres competence in this place.

    Oh I almost forgot: The (enormous?) volume of the zone were conditions are favorable
    and the time the processes remain undiluted gives the free fall hypothesis an advantage.
    We dont know the numbers here do we? Is the theory on the formations of stellar systems able to tell?

    I think Hoyle had such thoughts behind his "jumbo jet argument".
    All he meant was that its not probable life started here on earth...
    he was surely not arguing for divine intervention.
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 15th, 2012 at 05:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    How is life developing in a frozen state though? There is not liquid in space for the molecules to interact in.

    There is not reason to create a new term (free fall) when there is a clear demarcation between terrestrial and space already.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is life developing in a frozen state though? There is not liquid in space for the molecules to interact in.

    There is not reason to create a new term (free fall) when there is a clear demarcation between terrestrial and space already.
    One would think this is obvious, but no.

    It seems sW decides on an idea and then becomes hell-bent on trying to prove it, no matter how big the obstacles (like logic, known science, etc) in the way are. And he also confesses to enjoying argument (and apparently pissing people off) and that he is here to have fun until that runs out, never considering that his arguments are frequently nonsense and that the place is worse off with him being here. Kind of like a forum virus.
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is life developing in a frozen state though? There is not liquid in space for the molecules to interact in.
    Clearly it couldn't be water based then, not unless a mechanism existed for the ice to sometimes melt or something (like a chemical reaction that put off heat).

    However, at the same time, nothing says the first life forms can't be extremophiles. The question is.... what other options are there? We need some kind of movement or mixture of the chemicals to be happening.

    Would electricity work to cause the migrations? Maybe an iron rich asteroid, just the right size to serve as an antenna for one of the lower frequencies of the CMBR?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What about a rocky asteroid that is tidally locked with a star, so one side of the rock is always getting hit by the radiation, and the other merely enjoys some of the heat?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What about a rocky asteroid that is tidally locked with a star, so one side of the rock is always getting hit by the radiation, and the other merely enjoys some of the heat?
    OR one that is a bit larger and massive enough to hold on to water?
    Strange likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    As gravitational instabilities cause Giant Molecular Clouds to collapse and form stars the temperature within the clouds rises. These clouds contain potentially productive silicate substrates on which the abundant organic molecules also present in the clouds could adhere and grow in complexity. As the temperature rises further and accretion of the dust proceeds apace, liquid water would be found within the porous aggregates along with a mix of organic moecules of growing complexity.

    If primitive life can arise in a restricted volume of the oceans, it seems more probable that it could arise in the much greater volume of a suitably heated accretion disc from which protoplanets would be seeded. This possibility deserves serious consideration independent of Fred Hoyle's mistaken foray into protein formation mechanisms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    How is life developing in a frozen state though? There is not liquid in space for the molecules to interact in.

    There is not reason to create a new term (free fall) when there is a clear demarcation between terrestrial and space already.
    The easiest question first:
    1 If I should say "space" then people like Kalster would inform me that im an ignorant something not understanding that planets are in space: I have to be careful since my personal enemies take every opportunity I give them to harass me. (And I really do think they are amusing in their naive ways.)

    2 Water in space ordinarily exists in frozen form. (Note that had I been speaking with Kalster then Id be tempted to use the ancient term"earth" to give him an opportunity to explode, but since you ask an honest question YOU will get a straight answer.)
    But if the pressure is enough ,(consult an elementary phisics text for detail.) then if the temperature is raised frozen water will enter a liquid state ... forming drops of water. If the pressure is too low ice will vaporise.

    In the beginning the stellar cloud contains only frozen water and it appears the ice slowly gets covered with organic molecules created by radiation effects.(Remember: the atoms and some of the molecules in the solar system we see at the moment, were there already from the beginning.) The cloud contracts and begins rotating, making matter concentrate in its center where something first called a protosun will later start nucleosynthesis (For details on that, check out Fred Hoyle.)

    Too little is known about system forming but its clear that in the center the temperature and pressure is at highest and water therefore soon will turn into gas there but we dont know much of its constituents, all we can do is guessing that the gas contains heavy elements, so water drops (already containing organics) at the border of the gas will be exposed to an interesting air.

    Now Kalster might say: Aha! Then even if life is created there it will get killed, since it cant escape!
    Forgetting about convection and gravitational effects from forming planets, Lagrange points etcetera, but I wont take any details further. I only point out that the total mass of the drops of water in the favorable zones with unknown radiuses from the "centers" of the protosun and protoplanets should appear infinite compared to the mass of the water on earth. Add to that the time perspective: and the probability of life is high...at least it seems so to the "ignorant virus" sW.

    Note that the conditions in the so called favorable zone is vastly different from most space conditions, so the name"free fall" is better than it might appear on first sight, since space as it is unconsciously thought of, is space just outside earth today, and such a space is indeed incapable of producing life... here Im talking about something very much else.Something that does no longer exist in the solar system. Nobody (excapt perhaps Fred Hoyle) seems to have thought about it: -Lets call it "sWspace" just to be annoying!

    Isnt it an intriguing little fairytale?
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 15th, 2012 at 10:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    As gravitational instabilities cause Giant Molecular Clouds to collapse and form stars the temperature within the clouds rises. These clouds contain potentially productive silicate substrates on which the abundant organic molecules also present in the clouds could adhere and grow in complexity. As the temperature rises further and accretion of the dust proceeds apace, liquid water would be found within the porous aggregates along with a mix of organic moecules of growing complexity.

    If primitive life can arise in a restricted volume of the oceans, it seems more probable that it could arise in the much greater volume of a suitably heated accretion disc from which protoplanets would be seeded. This possibility deserves serious consideration independent of Fred Hoyle's mistaken foray into protein formation mechanisms.
    Well said, but I get curious about:
    " Fred Hoyle's mistaken foray into protein formation mechanisms."

    I could try to google it up but couldnt you in a few words inform us a little about it.
    Im not idolising Fred Hoyle I just think he deserves a decent treatment.
    And at the moment Im a bit over sensitive perhaps.
    Note that I in no way insinuated your doing anything indecent.
    On the contrary, you point towards information I should find of interest: Thank you!

    #Substitution for "clay" in space#? What will the professionals think of next?

    I think i suggest we smoke a piece pipe. Im not trolling. I find things to say I have not seen said and its not my way to be humble and say: Well perhaps if this little unsignificant worker might say somthing you probably heard thousand times before, and if you have the patience to....Well even the top imbeciles in here get my point dont you?
    I suggest this because ive seen signs that ...heck what should I call them...Scientists? start acting as Scientists. That makes it no longer necessary for me to catalyze things further on this subject.

    (I wonder what Ill think of next. Rejoice! Maybe you have to wait a little while )
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 15th, 2012 at 11:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    In the beginning the stellar cloud contains only frozen water and it appears the ice slowly gets covered with organic molecules created by radiation effects.(Remember: the atoms and some of the molecules in the solar system we see at the moment, were there already from the beginning.) The cloud contracts and begins rotating, making matter concentrate in its center where something first called a protosun will later start nucleosynthesis (For details on that, check out Fred Hoyle.)

    Too little is known about system forming but its clear that in the center the temperature and pressure is at highest and water therefore soon will turn into gas there but we dont know much of its constituents, all we can do is guessing that the gas contains heavy elements, so water drops (already containing organics) at the border of the gas will be exposed to an interesting air.
    I'm not sure if the rotation part is necessary, but I like where you're going with this. For a liquid or gaseous object large enough to have its own strong gravity, the heaviest particles would tend to settle toward the center.

    As you mentioned, the center would likely be the warmest part, and more importantly: it would also be the part with the most protection from
    radiation.


    So what are we looking at? Some kind of molten or melting comet? Maybe with some dust sprinkled in, to give it chemical variety?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I have moved some of the last posts here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/site-...gurdw-tsf.html

    That discussion can continue there. Liquid water on earth/panspermia/etc here and god related stuff in that thread.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,629
    Much better

    I was wondering myself why there is liquid water here.. But where did you make the calculations to sum up that according to the rays of the sun, the surface should be frozen solid many years ago.

    First i think, the earth had a very thin crust, and it was heated by the core.
    When the crust thickened, the volcanic activity should have skyrocketed, as it would be insulated. Athmospheric gasses would have been spewed out, and heated up the earth.
    Then, the plants came.... and should have cooled the surface down.... as energy was stored, and greenhouse gasses were transformed to non-greenhouse gasses..

    What happened during the rise of the plants, to keep the water liquid.. as the temperature should indeed have dropped... Maybe other volcanoes??
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Much better

    I was wondering myself why there is liquid water here.. But where did you make the calculations to sum up that according to the rays of the sun, the surface should be frozen solid many years ago.

    First i think, the earth had a very thin crust, and it was heated by the core.
    When the crust thickened, the volcanic activity should have skyrocketed, as it would be insulated. Athmospheric gasses would have been spewed out, and heated up the earth.
    Then, the plants came.... and should have cooled the surface down.... as energy was stored, and greenhouse gasses were transformed to non-greenhouse gasses..

    What happened during the rise of the plants, to keep the water liquid.. as the temperature should indeed have dropped... Maybe other volcanoes??
    You are asking the wrong questions. You are starting from the wrong premises. You have misunderstood the probable sequence of events and their relative significance. I don't really no where to begin to set you on the right path. I may try to write something concise up this evening.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    Plants are late comers to the party, not appearing on land until the Ordovician. Life first appears in the fossil record much earlier then that.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Plants are late comers to the party, not appearing on land until the Ordovician. Life first appears in the fossil record much earlier then that.
    I agree, but didnt the earliest forms(Discovered in Australia werent they?) resemble plants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If they're the ones I'm thinking of, they weren't on land at the time.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,561
    They were very simple, possibly algae like forms which later began to take the shape of stromatolites
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    If Im not interrupting things Id like to know more of early life forms.
    I wish Id get to pat some stromatolites, but Ill never get there

    Then theres the ediacara fauna... as I recall it Gould ,( or was it somebody else?)
    didnt put the pieces together in the right way...creating an animal that never existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •