Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 10:15 PM

Mercury has oxygen , water and methane, even now, so early on it could have had them in abundance.
"Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it."

A transfer of of living cells/spores could have happened 3.9 billion years ago. Doesn't that time coincide fairly well with life first being noticed on Earth?

They should send a space probe back to Mercury and land it on the ice in a crater and analyse the sample for life (organic molecules?).
If they found DNA or RNA or Protein I would say that proves life started off on Mercury.

You might think all that would prove is life is capable of existing in very extreme environments and it would prove that life exists on other planets.
Could I disprove that all the planets formed at the same time?

Well the Gas Giant planets formed after the Solar Wind blew the volatile material out there.
You can see the Asteroid Belt was in the process of planet building and was interrupted (I suspect by the solar wind).
And even if the other 4 planets formed at the same time during the proto-sun period you would have to agree the radiant pressure on the material nearest Mercury would be the highest compared to the rest, so Mercury warmed up earlier and had more intense light radiation to start off processes like photosynthesis.
Previously (weeks back now) looking through the Hubble images (Nebulae Section) I did see a star with multiple concentric bands of dust around it about to form multiple tori (planet formation occurring?) but whether it will finish the job we will never know.
Because I have now seen this imagine I can't insist the planets in our solar system definitely formed in a series.

Are there any features of life today that might suggest it was of extra-terrestrial origin?
Do you think there is any reason only 4 nucleic acid bases are used?
I looking for some feature that might suggest life started off on Mercury. Any help most welcome.

AlexG

11-11-11, 10:23 PM

.
"Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it."

That is copied from http://www.universetoday.com/22097/life-on-mercury/

It's a good idea to give the source when you quote something.

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 10:25 PM

That is copied from http://www.universetoday.com/22097/life-on-mercury/

It's a good idea to give the source when you quote something.
Thanks - I had lost where it come from as at that time i couldn't post links.

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 10:25 PM

During the proto-sun period there was a massive amount of water and other volatiles on Mercury. That Wikipedia far underestimates the original size of the planet.
Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites.
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution (abiogenesis) occurred.

Based on my calculations from the mass of material in the nebula disc. The rings of rubble as you say then forming planetesimals then coalescing into a planet.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.

There is more evolution to develop the first living cell that to go from a bacterium to a man. You seem to think it is easy but it isn't and it required a special place like Mercury.
The Earth was just a block of frozen liquids (a lot like Jupiter's moon is today) no life here sorry. (I might change my view on this with time ????)
We have been discussing the abiogenesis debate for months now on the Wooden Boat Forum / Bilge / "Are we alone in the Universe."

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 10:36 PM

Those calculations were done in around 1998 -1999 I did them most definitely.
I was saying to my friends on WBF that I must try and find where those notes went for I was going to scan them in as a photo. I'm not sure where they are just at the moment but I'm sure they weren't lost.
What I am saying here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. Can you think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?

spidergoat

11-11-11, 10:47 PM

How hot was it during the proto-sun period? It is during this period planets are formed and life begins.
You're forgetting about all the collisions and catastrophic violence during that time. Life didn't begin until that stabilized.

AlexG

11-11-11, 10:50 PM

http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

5.1.3 Protostar

Within 400,000 years the globule had condensed to a millionth of its original size, but still over four times the size of the present solar system. At the centre of the globule a core had developed, heated by the concentration of its matter, already able to radiate a substantial amount of energy into the less dense outer regions of the former globule. The emission of radiation by the core began to slow the condensation of its matter. The matter becomes opaque and the free fall is stopped by the pressure. This core had now developed into a stable and well-defined configuration called protostar or protosun. With the birth of the protosun the evolution of this matter configuration advanced more rapidly.

Within a few thousand years it collapsed to a size of the diameter of the orbit of planet Mars. The interior temperature reached values of 56,000K leading to an ionization of atoms. The red light emitted at the surface of the protosun was not produced by fusion of atomic nuclei but by gravitational contraction of matter. Gravitation released the potential energy of the globule, 7 10^48 erg, during the condensation of the protosun. According to the Virial theorem (2Tk + = 0) one half of the released gravitational energy of the system was radiated from the protosun while the other half had been transformed into heat of the central core; Tk denotes the total kinetic energy of the particles.

If the protosun extended to the orbit of Mars, there was no Mercury during the protosun stage.

Robittybob1

11-12-11, 12:06 AM

http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html
If the protosun extended to the orbit of Mars, there was no Mercury during the protosun stage.
This is describing is the way the proto-sun condensed. It once was just a nebula of enormous proportions,
"Within 400,000 years the globule had condensed to a millionth of its original size, but still over four times the size of the present solar system."

You have to remember the proto-sun is contracting all the time.
So during the whole proto-sun stage there are a whole series of changes, so from now on I need to say "in the late proto-sun period".
As the proto-sun is contracting it is drawing the proto-planetary disc in along with it.

The planets only begin to form after the contracting proto-sun has separated from the protoplanetary disc. This I believe is due to the balance between the forces of gravitational attraction against radiant pressure and conservation of angular momentum of the disc.

Robittybob1

11-12-11, 12:09 AM

You're forgetting about all the collisions and catastrophic violence during that time. Life didn't begin until that stabilized.True but if you read above how I propose planets formed there is a big difference between the standard theory and my method.:)

AlexG

11-12-11, 12:38 AM

Robittybob1

11-12-11, 01:51 AM

It quite clearly said that the protosun, the core, filled the orbit of mars and had a temperature of 56,000 K. Since this would put any rocky planet within the core, it's quite obvious that the protosun phase is not when the early planets formed.
I'll quote that bit again
Within a few thousand years it collapsed to a size of the diameter of the orbit of planet Mars. The interior temperature reached values of 56,000K leading to an ionization of atoms. The red light emitted at the surface of the protosun was not produced by fusion of atomic nuclei but by gravitational contraction of matter. Gravitation released the potential energy of the globule, 7 10^48 erg, during the condensation of the protosun.
That to me is saying after a few thousand years it was that size, but the whole protosun period is much much longer than that. So they are just describing it's size at one stage of its development. For at the end of the proto-sun period it had condensed down to the size of the Sun. You should be able to see it never stopped shrinking till it turned into a t Tauri star.:)

Captain Kremmen

11-12-11, 06:02 AM

So, was the OP, regarding Mercury, a joke then?
Is there any point to this thread?

Robittybob1

11-12-11, 10:51 AM

So, was the OP, regarding Mercury, a joke then?
Is there any point to this thread?Yes it is asking for "Help Wanted".
Are you wanting to be one of the helpers?
I need a team of geophysicists, mathematicians, and Astronauts willing to dedicate their life to the search for life on Mercury. :)

420Joey

11-12-11, 12:40 PM

https://freesslproxy.com/home.php/0ao8d98a/Bv8iqKOf/o2SxYaqc/n2ygMJEc/LF5ipzpi/q2yenKOy/MTyuY2Ai/oJ1ioaZi/qTu1oJVi/MF9yAP9H/pzSwnUyf/MKOcp19g/LJA1oTyf/LJWlnKAs/oJS0nJ5a/YzcjMl8m/ZQOjrP1H/pzSwnUyf/MKOcp19g/LJA1oTyf/LJWlnKAs/oJS0nJ5a/YzcjMj_3/D_3D/meta2/

Start with these guys

AlexG

11-12-11, 01:43 PM

For what you're trying to do, these are the guys you need.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Stoogelogo.png/300px-Stoogelogo.png

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 12:09 AM

For what you're trying to do, these are the guys you need.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Stoogelogo.png/300px-Stoogelogo.pngOne looks like a geophysicists, one a mathematician, and one an Astronaut. Thanks for finding the right compliment of talent.

:)

Arioch

11-13-11, 12:20 AM

And cultural icon fail.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 12:27 AM

And cultural icon fail.I am a visitor here. Take me to your leader. :)

Rhaedas

11-13-11, 03:36 AM

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 10:21 AM

We still don't know enough about abiogenesis or the early history of the solar system to completely dismiss your theory, which apparently includes a lot more than simply panspermia from Mercury, as it needs a totally new solar system evolution.

However...it's also not up to us to disprove that theory. There's a perfectly acceptable theory on the books that reasonably explains the beginning of the solar system, the growth of planetary bodies, as well as some ideas on how when conditions became favorable, chemical replicators changed to something we can qualify as life.

What you have to do is not only show some evidence of your ideas, but you have to show that they make more sense and hold up better than mainstream theory. Thus far, you haven't done that. You could start by addressing Aqueous Id's questions, as without having some sense of your possible limitations, you're just rambling about a pet theory with no basis.
What come first the chicken or the egg? In my case I know what come first. I discovered how planets formed, and it is radially different from what the current hypothesis is. I have detailed this in Physforums. So years after this, we were discussing "Are we alone in the Universe?" on Wooden Boats forum I then came to the conclusion the most suitable place for abiogenesis was Mercury. Thanks for your suggestions.
I will go and look for Aqueous' questions later but now I'm in a rush. Later.:)

AlexG

11-13-11, 10:58 AM

I discovered how planets formed, and it is radially different from what the current hypothesis is

A radical misuse of the word 'discovered'.

What you mean is having no knowledge of the subject at all, you pulled an idea out of your ass, having no basis in any kind of observation or experiment.

That's called crank.

Dywyddyr

11-13-11, 11:00 AM

and it is radially different from what the current hypothesis is.
I think you mean circumferentially different.
You're round the bend.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 01:22 PM

A radical misuse of the word 'discovered'.

What you mean is having no knowledge of the subject at all, you pulled an idea out of your ass, having no basis in any kind of observation or experiment.

That's called crank.Yeah who has run an experiment showing planet building? In fact I did do some experiments allbeit very rudimentary ones.

You say I have no knowledge but I'm not so sure you have much knowledge about it either. But I tell you a did a lot of searching for the answers before I attempted to work it out myself.

Imagine if someone worked out 1 + 1 = 2 and someone else showed 2 + 2 = 4, and then I came along and said 4 * 1 = 4
Would you say about that "Where is your experiment? Show this to be true" before you would accept it?

Gustav

11-13-11, 01:35 PM

@Dyw --

I like you, I don't have to work as hard when you're around.

mmm
smoke some weed kiddo
it will take the edge off

/kind like that

if that fails, some psychological counseling?

/even kinder

Arioch

11-13-11, 03:42 PM

@Gustav --

Aw, someone thinks he's in a position to give me advice. That is so cute.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 03:45 PM

I am proposing something different and just as likely as what others think happened. If you think I am wrong show me where I am wrong, just don't try and win the argument by insulting me.
I am serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums.

I have yet to have anyone tell me why my hypothesis is obviously wrong.

Now you realise we are talking of volatile masses here, things that make up the early atmosphere. Don't let your agile mind think in terms of rocks, soils, dust or anything like that. So what we have is this 1 earth mass of rocky iron nickel silicone containing terrestrial bit holding this enormous globe of gas and liquid around it. I have not worked out to what radius that would make it. It would be good for the discussion progress if someone could work it out. Say with an average density of 1.5 to account for some compression of the inner liquid (How much extra radius would that make the Earth to have 27 Earth masses of volatiles around it? What are you like at maths?

Now when the Sun went through the next stages of development and turned into a main sequence star it rapidly heated and the solar wind and radiant pressure drove the loosely bound volatile gasses off into space to be picked up by the still forming gas giant planets. This would have been extremely intensified once the Moon had been captured in orbit. The tides and waves created would have been enough to send liquids directly into space. (This the material from which Comets formed)

That is where the Gas Giant planets get their exceptional mass from. And also partly contributed to mass of the ice planets even further out.
The same sort of process was happening on Mercury Venus Mars and on the planetesimals in the Asteroid Belt.

Arioch

11-13-11, 03:52 PM

How is it "just as likely"?

And we don't need to prove your hypothesis wrong, you need to prove it right. You can't shirk the burden of proof here.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 04:20 PM

How is it "just as likely"?

And we don't need to prove your hypothesis wrong, you need to prove it right. You can't shirk the burden of proof here.Well of course it has to be one or the other, or maybe we accept that neither can be proven, both could be right.
I would love to know, and I am thinking how one could prove it. The more discussion I get on the topic the better. Someone with knowledge may just come along and assist. That is what I hope for in any case.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 06:42 PM

So what I think we need to do is to try and calculate the size of the Earth if it has 27 times it's current mass as volatile liquids and atmosphere. We may be able to see what the Escape velocity would be of a planet that large and then see if the Magnetic field would still be able to deflect the Solar Wind at that distance.

I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Does anyone want to give it a go?

Arioch

11-13-11, 07:16 PM

@Rob --

Ockham's Razor disagrees with you.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 07:52 PM

@Rob --

Ockham's Razor disagrees with you.Just consulting Wikipedia on the topic "In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

So it is a guiding principle not an irrefutable principle.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 08:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

There are plenty of unsolved problems in those Wikipedia articles. In my research of the problem I came up with a method that I observed in one of the photos on the Hubble Album on Nebulae. The answer lies in the formation of these concentric dust rings. Then radiant pressure from the Proto-Sun pushes these dust rings into ever denser torus shaped objects in the original nebula disc. The division of these rings is based on a principle similar to Titius – Bode’s Law. Since the proto-planetary disc is divided in a rather mathematical fashion and it was nearly even thickness and density (I think it is fair to say further out it will have been thinner). It is then possible to calculate the amount of material within each Torus.

The timing of the process is critical and it must occur during the protosun period. Once the Sun fires up gas and small particles are just swept away into the outer regions.
From these observations and calculations I was able to propose that the Sun begun thermonuclear at the time the Asteroid Belt was in the late Torus stage when the ring had become dense enough to form planetesimals. Once the lighter material had blown away there was insufficient cohesion in the torus to allow planet formation to continue.

Arioch

11-13-11, 08:47 PM

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 09:12 PM

I never said it was irrefutable, just that it disagrees with you. Whether it's refutable or not, postulating something that flies in the face of parsimony, as your idea does here, is not a good sign. In fact it's a sign that you are almost assuredly wrong, because while Ockham's Razor could be wrong, we've never once observed it to be wrong.

I know which bet I'm going to take.It says in the Wiki article on Osscam's Razor "There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory from among several possibilities that are each consistent with available data. A single instance of Occam’s razor picking a wrong theory falsifies the razor as a general principle.

If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to choose one that is preferred. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian, and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest in using Occam’s razor to say the other two are wrong. Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models which make the same testable predictions."

So what makes you think it is never wrong. I don't actually know personally either way, but I notice this apparent contradition between your statement and what Wikipedia states.

Also states "The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories."

So neither Osscam's Razor nor the argument of parsimony can be used to decide between the 2 theories.

Robittybob1

11-13-11, 10:04 PM

I would like someone to help me this time. My calculations started years ago from an internet search where I found a scientist who had estimated the thickness and density of the dust disc from which the planets formed. Now if anyone has that information that is where we will start recalculating the masses.

What would happen to the terrestrial part of the Earth if my "calculations" were wrong being rather an underestimate of the original Earth mass, What say it was 50 times what it is now.
Would the terrestrial part have been severely compressed as is the core of Jupiter?

The core of the Earth is quite compressed even with just the 1 earth mass to deal with.

Well since the ratio of Continental plates to ocean plates fits in with the Expanding Earth hypothesis. The reasons given on that Wikipedia site on the topic only mention compression in passing.
It is not considered as a cause in the Expanding Earth theory.

Before I realized the connection between my Early Earth mass calculations and this hypothesis, I was intrigued by the Expanding Earth, and from my ignorance at the time I thought it might have been a result of radioactivity producing more molecules hence expanding the core, but I was shown that this doesn't happen.

It is well known that even solid material are compressible under enough pressure.
This can been seen when you compare the density of the Earth's inner core with Iron -Nickel alloy under normal atmospheric pressure.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 12:16 PM

The question I ask myself is there any evidence for this?
Are the surface features of the Earth indicative of this previous compression. The only logical cause of that size reduction of the terrestrial part is the massiveness of the Early Earth.
To get that massiveness the planet forming process is more orderly and the planetary spacing is as found by Bode. There was sufficient density in the proto-planetary disc to form planets of this size. The evidence of this is the oversize of the gas giant planets. The timing of the planetary building process had a sequential aspect to it. From the inside out, and it was when the process was forming a planet in the Asteroid belt the Sun fired up. The ring of asteroids is further evidence of the process was from a torus structure and without the essential volatile material to cushion and make stickiness and cohesion and sufficient gravitational strength to pull the whole torus into one planet and possibly one or more smaller moons.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 12:20 PM

If you can see the reasoning of my previous post, you will see that Mercury was formed for the longest period and under the influence of the heating protosun. This makes Mercury the prime candidate for being the incubator planet in our solar system.

If this was the case and life forms, possibly in the form of spores, traversed space and seeded the Early Earth. I want the opinions of biologists to tell me if there is any sign of redundant aspects of a cell that could indicate this on the biological basis.

origin

11-14-11, 12:48 PM

I would like someone to help me this time.

The question I ask myself is there any evidence for this?

Here is your help - No, there is no evidence, the entire conjecture is silly beyond words. Go to school and learn some physics for clarification.

Hope that helped!

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 01:08 PM

Here is your help - No, there is no evidence, the entire conjecture is silly beyond words. Go to school and learn some physics for clarification.

Hope that helped!You can't dismiss a serious proposition like this simply by saying it is silly beyond words.
You must realize I am a very clever person so how can you say it is silly? Where are your facts Laddie?

Arioch

11-14-11, 01:30 PM

@Rob --

"There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the wrong theory given the available data."

And yet Ockham's Razor would have picked the right theory if the available data were sufficient, and since science is constantly adjusting it's views in light of new evidence, the concept of parsimony is saved.

In this case we have all of the data we need to reject your idea(it's not even a hypothesis yet). Mercury is just too hot for abiogenesis(leading to our type of life) to take place. Furthermore we know that the lack of liquid water and the fact that there just isn't enough of it in the first place. This is enough to land a death blow on your idea.

You can't dismiss a serious proposition like this simply by saying it is silly beyond words.

Sure we can, scientists do it all the time when faced with outlandish ideas that have literally no supporting evidence. You want us to take your idea seriously, then provide some evidence that it's right, fulfill your burden of proof.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 04:27 PM

@Rob --

And yet Ockham's Razor would have picked the right theory if the available data were sufficient, and since science is constantly adjusting it's views in light of new evidence, the concept of parsimony is saved.

In this case we have all of the data we need to reject your idea(it's not even a hypothesis yet). Mercury is just too hot for abiogenesis(leading to our type of life) to take place. Furthermore we know that the lack of liquid water and the fact that there just isn't enough of it in the first place. This is enough to land a death blow on your idea.

Sure we can, scientists do it all the time when faced with outlandish ideas that have literally no supporting evidence. You want us to take your idea seriously, then provide some evidence that it's right, fulfill your burden of proof.I was thinking about Ockham’s Razor earlier, and really it protects against the unnecessarily complicated, like if I was to propose life went from Mercury to Venus then to Mars and then finally to Earth. Then you would be justified to use Ockham's Razor against that.
Nuf said on that topic.

Your arguments against life on Mercury would only be correct if life were to evolve there after the Sun became thermonuclear (T Tauri and Main Sequence forms).

You didn't make any claims about Mercury during the protosun period and that is the vital part of my hypothesis; that planet building and abiogenesis occurred in the mid to late protosun period.

Thanks for the discussion in any case.

Arioch

11-14-11, 04:50 PM

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 05:15 PM

@Rob --

So you're claiming that abiogenesis, the rise of the first replicators, began during the protosun period of the solar system and that it might have happened on the planet Mercury as well?

Well the abiogenesis thing is answerable right away in that the timelines don't match up. The protosun time period began almost four point five billion years ago, about four hundred thousand years after the formation of the planetary disc. As near as we can tell the first replicators appeard about four billion years ago, about half a billion years later. Unless you're saying that the protosun period lasted for half a billion years and that the inner planets were able to form and had the elements necessary for life(including water, which is something that the data says didn't happen as the during that time this area was to hot for molecules like water and methane to condense) you've got some serious issues with your idea.You might be defining your terms differently than I do. I think of the protoplanetary disc appearing after the proto-sun has separated from it. So they are forming together till the separation.
What is your "data" source? For the heat was not a problem during the protosun period, it was never "too hot for molecules like water and methane to condense" on any of the inner, now terrestrial planets.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 06:40 PM

I see the forum has discussed the Expanding Earth (ExE) premise. Tectonic plate movements are facilitated by it. So Tectonic plate movement and ExE go hand in hand.

The expansion of the Earth, please understand, is a result of loss of volatile mass hence a reduced compression of the terrestrial part.
Well is that still happening today? No, the Earth now is in a state of balance, where mass loss balances weight gain so the core does not have any reason to expand at the moment.
Whether the Atlantic is widening is a local issue and will be dependent on the currents in the mantle. There could be changes in this at times so the spread of the continental plates will not be predicted till we know the strengths of the current emanating in the mantle layer etc. (This heating is related to radioactivity occurring in the Earth itself.)

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 08:01 PM

The picture I'm trying to paint is that the Earth was not such a suitable place for abiogenesis.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 10:15 PM

Q. Why did the Solar Wind fail to blow Jupiter's atmosphere away?
A. The strength of the Solar Wind falls off with the inverse square relationship. Jupiter is rather a long way from the Sun but if you were to get close enough to Jupiter, you might find the wind is whipping some material from Jupiter too. But it will take a long time to strip it bare; but it may happen as the Sun's radiation continues to intensify.

Below is a list and Jupiter is 5.2 AU from the Sun so the intensity of the wind may only 1/27 of the strength of the solar wind on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
“The distances are approximate mean distances. It has to be taken into consideration that the distances between celestial bodies change in time due to their orbits and other factors.

The Moon is 0.0026 ± 0.0001 AU from the Earth
The Earth is 1.00 ± 0.02 AU from the Sun
Mars is 1.52 ± 0.14 AU from the Sun
Jupiter is 5.20 ± 0.05 AU from the Sun”

Arioch

11-14-11, 10:27 PM

@Rob --

The picture I'm trying to paint is that the Earth was not such a suitable place for abiogenesis.

If that's the case then you've got a long and nigh impossible road ahead of you. Perhaps you should read the current work on abiogenesis as what we know of the early Earth is that it was a fine place of abiogenesis to occur. Plenty of water and organic compounds to serve as a base for the first replicators, lots of energy from the very active mantle, plenty of sunlight, and an incredibly small amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere(most of it was bound up in the organic compounds already mentioned). We're talking about the work of at least three different fields of science that you're trying to overturn here.

Good luck, you're going to need it.

Robittybob1

11-14-11, 11:39 PM

@Rob --

If that's the case then you've got a long and nigh impossible road ahead of you. Perhaps you should read the current work on abiogenesis as what we know of the early Earth is that it was a fine place of abiogenesis to occur. Plenty of water and organic compounds to serve as a base for the first replicators, lots of energy from the very active mantle, plenty of sunlight, and an incredibly small amount of free oxygen in the atmosphere(most of it was bound up in the organic compounds already mentioned). We're talking about the work of at least three different fields of science that you're trying to overturn here.

Good luck, you're going to need it.Thanks for the advice and the words of encouragement. I know it will be difficult, but I feel I have made quite a good start. I'm still hoping a geophysicist will turn up in time who would like to "help" for or against, for just to be able to apply the right analysis is so important.:)

Arioch

11-15-11, 12:26 AM

@Rob --

I happen to be on good terms with a geologist, he's usually quite busy but he might answer a few questions, should I direct him to you?

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 12:33 AM

@Rob --

I happen to be on good terms with a geologist, he's usually quite busy but he might answer a few questions, should I direct him to you?I'll send you my email address if you like. Sure, thanks, please do that for there are some very difficult questions when you get into the physics of compressing a planet, so any help is most welcome.:)

Ophiolite

11-15-11, 02:14 AM

@Rob --
You do realize that there's literally no evidence supporting a Panspermia origin of life, right? It's a hypothesis, but not a very likely one and not a very respected one.No evidence?1. The appearance of comparatively complex lifeforms on the Earth almost as soon as the Late Heavy Bombardment period had ended.
2. Modelling supporting the easy transfer of lifeforms from Mars to Earth.
3. The presence of scores of organic molecules in GMCs, accompanied by abundant substrates for chemical reaction.

Not a respected hypothesis?
Francis Crick found it respectable enough. (But then we know Nobel laureates get weird when they get older. Right?)

Here are some typical papers on the topic from hundreds that are available:

Survival of bacteria exposed to extreme acceleration:
implications for panspermia (http://academics.skidmore.edu/blogs/bi-378-s11-hchen/files/2011/04/sdarticle.pdf)

Maximum Number of Habitable Planets at the Time of Earth's Origin: New Hints for Panspermia? (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p42pu71v4g5w8q00/)

The enigma of the origin of life and its timing (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/148/1/21.full.pdf+html)

And here is the abstract of a review article:
"Panspermia is the idea that life migrates naturally through space. Although an old idea, there has been much recent theoretical and experimental work developing the idea in recent years. In this review, this progress is considered and placed in context. Ideas concerning Panspermia now include mathematical treatments of the likelihood of transfer of life from Mars to Earth, the possibility of life transferring between the natural satellites of an outer planet such as Jupiter, and mathematical treatments and models of life migrating out of a Solar System. Not all predictions of the likelihood of successful Panspermia are positive, and some are contradictory. At present, Panspermia can neither be proved nor disproved. Nevertheless, Panspermia is an intellectual idea which holds strong attraction. However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin."
Source: Burchell, M.J. Panspermia Today International Journal of Astrobiology (2004), 3 : pp 73-80

In short, there is both evidence and support for the concept. Perhaps you have confused an interest in a subject - the origin of life - with substantive knowledge about it.

@Robbitybob1,your wild speculation fails on several levels, only two of which I address here.

The physical make up of Mercury, large core, small mantle, is currently best explained by a massive impact that stripped a large part of the mantle from the planet. Subsequently Mercury was subjected to extensive bombardment that may have continued after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment period. These conditions would not have been suitable for the development of life, even if volatiles were present on the planet.

You have offered no evidence in support of your contention that the Earth was 27 times larger. Evidence for the temperatures present in the proto-planetary disk at various stages in its evolution are against the presence of volatiles in the proportion you propose for the primitive Earth. You have to demonstrate why this evidence is incorrect and I doubt you are able to do this.

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 02:53 AM

No evidence?1. The appearance of comparatively complex lifeforms on the Earth almost as soon as the Late Heavy Bombardment period had ended.
2. Modelling supporting the easy transfer of lifeforms from Mars to Earth.
3. The presence of scores of organic molecules in GMCs, accompanied by abundant substrates for chemical reaction.

Not a respected hypothesis?
Francis Crick found it respectable enough. (But then we know Nobel laureates get weird when they get older. Right?)

Here are some typical papers on the topic from hundreds that are available:

Survival of bacteria exposed to extreme acceleration:
implications for panspermia (http://academics.skidmore.edu/blogs/bi-378-s11-hchen/files/2011/04/sdarticle.pdf)

Maximum Number of Habitable Planets at the Time of Earth's Origin: New Hints for Panspermia? (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p42pu71v4g5w8q00/)

The enigma of the origin of life and its timing (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/148/1/21.full.pdf+html)

And here is the abstract of a review article:
"Panspermia is the idea that life migrates naturally through space. Although an old idea, there has been much recent theoretical and experimental work developing the idea in recent years. In this review, this progress is considered and placed in context. Ideas concerning Panspermia now include mathematical treatments of the likelihood of transfer of life from Mars to Earth, the possibility of life transferring between the natural satellites of an outer planet such as Jupiter, and mathematical treatments and models of life migrating out of a Solar System. Not all predictions of the likelihood of successful Panspermia are positive, and some are contradictory. At present, Panspermia can neither be proved nor disproved. Nevertheless, Panspermia is an intellectual idea which holds strong attraction. However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin."
Source: Burchell, M.J. Panspermia Today International Journal of Astrobiology (2004), 3 : pp 73-80

In short, there is both evidence and support for the concept. Perhaps you have confused an interest in a subject - the origin of life - with substantive knowledge about it.

@Robbitybob1,your wild speculation fails on several levels, only two of which I address here.

The physical make up of Mercury, large core, small mantle, is currently best explained by a massive impact that stripped a large part of the mantle from the planet. Subsequently Mercury was subjected to extensive bombardment that may have continued after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment period. These conditions would not have been suitable for the development of life, even if volatiles were present on the planet.

You have offered no evidence in support of your contention that the Earth was 27 times larger. Evidence for the temperatures present in the proto-planetary disk at various stages in its evolution are against the presence of volatiles in the proportion you propose for the primitive Earth. You have to demonstrate why this evidence is incorrect and I doubt you are able to do this.

Obviously I have not yet had time to read those articles you have referred to but I’ll throw in a couple of quick comments now and a fuller reply later.
I liked this bit in you extract However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin. For as you know it is that very question I am hoping to answer.

As for your two rebuttals I have this to say:
1.
The physical make up of Mercury, large core, small mantle, is currently best explained by a massive impact that stripped a large part of the mantle from the planet. Subsequently Mercury was subjected to extensive bombardment that may have continued after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment period. These conditions would not have been suitable for the development of life, even if volatiles were present on the planet.”

In my hypothesis planet formation and abiogenesis occurs in the mid to late proto-sun period (which is much earlier than the Late Heavy Bombardment period) . I imagine a lot of the material involved in the Late Heavy Bombardment period was volatile material blown off the inner planets at the time of the Sun becoming a “t Tauri” star.
So my timing is so much earlier than the period you have said was unsuitable.

You have offered no evidence in support of your contention that the Earth was 27 times larger. Evidence for the temperatures present in the proto-planetary disk at various stages in its evolution are against the presence of volatiles in the proportion you propose for the primitive Earth. You have to demonstrate why this evidence is incorrect and I doubt you are able to do this”

As far as this calculation goes I would be willing to go through it again on the forum for it was a relatively simple calculation. It starts from an estimate of the density and form of the proto-planetary disc. I used figures I found on the Internet in 1998-99.
Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure. If you are thinking the Sun is shining on the proto-planetary disc and/or the terrestrial planets as they are forming we are working in totally different time periods. :)

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 12:20 PM

Are there any Earth Scientists on Sciforums? Ophiolite has been the only one so far.

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 01:29 PM

Q1. Does the Solar wind have the power to strip anything bare beyond Mercury's orbit?
Q2. Is it true the gas in the solar system never even had a chance to settle before it was blown to the outer solar system? Did it had anything to do with the life cycle of the sun?
Q3. Is it true the sun was practically as it is today when the planets were forming?

Answer 1. The Solar Wind is stripping the Earth's atmosphere every day. Also look, where has the atmosphere from Mars gone?

Answer 2. That would only happen if the planets formed when the Sun was thermonuclear (T Tauri or Main Sequence; I think these are the terms used). Before that the glowing protosun had the gentle radiant pressure needed to drive planet formation.

Answer 3. I don't know where you are getting your rates of formation from. Plenty of places mention the Sun is 10% brighter than earlier periods.

Arioch

11-15-11, 02:10 PM

@Rob --

In my hypothesis planet formation and abiogenesis occurs in the mid to late proto-sun period

How long do you think the proto-sun period lasted?

When did the proto-sun period begin?

When do you estimate abiogenesis occurred?

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 02:47 PM

@Rob --

How long do you think the proto-sun period lasted?

When did the proto-sun period begin?

When do you estimate abiogenesis occurred?I was thinking about this today too, in that I use these terms without clearly defined periods. The reason for this is I am thinking in terms of sequences first. Figure out the sequence that things had to occur in first rather than worry about how long each part might have been.
I am sure the sequence and the times will marry up OK in the end.

Like for example if you say planet building occurred after the Sun fired up you get a totally different type of planet, one without the volatiles.

But in general I would have to use the generally accepted time scales for the Nebula - Proto-sun - Sun stages.

Arioch

11-15-11, 03:01 PM

@Rob --

But in general I would have to use the generally accepted time scales for the Nebula - Proto-sun - Sun stages.

So the fact that abiogenesis didn't occur, in other words that life wasn't present on the planet, until after our sun had become a main sequence star doesn't bother you? You'll just reinterpret the time line until you get the one you want? How is that science?

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 03:25 PM

@Rob --

So the fact that abiogenesis didn't occur, in other words that life wasn't present on the planet, until after our sun had become a main sequence star doesn't bother you? You'll just reinterpret the time line until you get the one you want? How is that science?Your question seemed a bit jumbled but I'll give it a go.

Life could be transferred at any stage, protosun or t tauri or main sequence stage. That transfer would be due to a collision type event. No one will be able to tell when that happened.
But the proposal is that abiogenesis occurred on Mercury and spores were subsequently transferred to Earth. Earth could support simple life but the conditions never favoured abiogenesis. The multiplication of life at the beginning may have been rather slow, so it took a long time to show up in the geological records. (The records are good in saying yea or nea to life forms but not when the lifeforms arrived)
As far as reinterpreting the timelines etc, it will be good to have the pieces fitting perfectly, in other words if the theory is right the pieces will fit.

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 07:40 PM

Take this passage as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
.....
"T Tauri stars like the young Sun have far stronger stellar winds than more stable, older stars. Uranus and Neptune are believed to have formed after Jupiter and Saturn did, when the strong solar wind had blown away much of the disc material. As a result, the planets accumulated little hydrogen and helium—not more than 1 Earth mass each. Uranus and Neptune are sometimes referred to as failed cores.[31] The main problem with formation theories for these planets is the timescale of their formation. At the current locations it would have taken a hundred million years for their cores to accrete. This means that Uranus and Neptune probably formed closer to the Sun—near or even between Jupiter and Saturn—and later migrated outward (see Planetary migration below).[31][32] Motion in the planetesimal era was not all inward toward the Sun; the Stardust sample return from Comet Wild 2 has suggested that materials from the early formation of the Solar System migrated from the warmer inner Solar System to the region of the Kuiper belt.[33]
After between three and ten million years,[29] the young Sun's solar wind would have cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disc, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets. "

Robittybob1

11-15-11, 07:46 PM

From the above clip these things gel with my hypothesis:
"T Tauri stars like the young Sun have far stronger stellar winds"
"Uranus and Neptune are believed to have formed after Jupiter and Saturn did"
"The main problem with formation theories for these planets is the timescale of their formation" The current theories have problems!
"materials from the early formation of the Solar System migrated from the warmer inner Solar System to the region of the Kuiper belt."
"After between three and ten million years,[29] the young Sun's solar wind would have cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disc, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets. "

All of these fit within my hypothesis.
"

origin

11-16-11, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by origin
Here is your help - No, there is no evidence, the entire conjecture is silly beyond words. Go to school and learn some physics for clarification
You can't dismiss a serious proposition like this simply by saying it is silly beyond words.
You must realize I am a very clever person so how can you say it is silly? Where are your facts Laddie?

Of course I can dismiss it; it is silly. The fact that you say your idea is a serious proposition indicates that you are not a clever person.

Where are my facts? Science has given an excellent scenario for the formation of the solar system and the planets. You have an alternate idea. It is up to you to present evidence for your conjecture. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence since the entire thing is silly beyond words. Sorry but it is what it is!

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 11:07 AM

Of course I can dismiss it; it is silly. The fact that you say your idea is a serious proposition indicates that you are not a clever person.

Where are my facts? Science has given an excellent scenario for the formation of the solar system and the planets. You have an alternate idea. It is up to you to present evidence for your conjecture. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence since the entire thing is silly beyond words. Sorry but it is what it is!You are not reading what I have written with an open mind. You are happy with what you have been told and now closed to new ideas. Did you know there is no proof of what you believe? In fact the more exoplanets they find the more they realise they have it wrong. That admission is on the the NASA site and if you need it I will find it.:)

origin

11-16-11, 12:22 PM

You are not reading what I have written with an open mind.

Wrong

You are happy with what you have been told and now closed to new ideas.

Wrong

Did you know there is no proof of what you believe?

Wrong

In fact the more exoplanets they find the more they realise they have it wrong.

Wrong

That admission is on the the NASA site and if you need it I will find it.:)

Wrong

Saying that exoplanets have raised questions that need to be answered does not negate the theory of the solar system formation.

Nothing anywhere gives the slightest indication of the patently silly scenario you proposed. To believe your conjecture it would take more than an open mind, it would take a hollow head. ;)

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 12:33 PM

Wrong .... wrong

Saying that exoplanets have raised questions that need to be answered does not negate the theory of the solar system formation.

Nothing anywhere gives the slightest indication of the patently silly scenario you proposed. To believe your conjecture it would take more than an open mind, it would take a hollow head. ;)
Well at least you have a sense of humour and I did laugh a little.
But my head is on the case and there will come the right team with me to look into these proposals.
OK I admit I don't have all the proof, but I can't see that it is impossible in spite of all the wrongs you say.

Lee

11-16-11, 12:49 PM

It is difficult to "prove" life anywhere else at this time. Without scientific close range observation, or the analysis of an atmosphere showing biological compounds (which does not guarantee life) there is no certainty.
However, on the esoteric level the answer is simple. To digress: String Theory now postulates that the part of the "string" we see is dispersed over 11 dimensions. This is actual science. In the esoteric tradition the Masters say that the purpose of the creation is consciousness (life) and that all bodies created (worlds, suns, galaxies) will have life at many points during their existance. As String theory postulates these other dimensions, then on earth there may be thousands of dimensions functioning simultaneously without awareness of each other. And these forms of life may be of such diffeerent principles that we could not even imagine their composition and functioning. It is truly egocentrical to imagine that carbon based life as we perceive it is the norm.
Therefore, the esoteric answer is that all planets possess life, although they are not visible nor perceptable to us. Mercury could not do our form of carbon and water based life as one side is hot enough to meld lead, the other over 200 below zero, and the atmosphere has been blasted away by the solar wind. So this eliminates one of the thousands of possibilities. But not the others.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 12:57 PM

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 01:02 PM

Therefore, the esoteric answer is that all planets possess life, although they are not visible nor perceptable to us.
How strange, therefore, that these life forms in "another dimension" require a planet that is manifestly evident in the dimensions that we can perceive.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 01:08 PM

How strange, therefore, that these life forms in "another dimension" require a planet that is manifestly evident in the dimensions that we can perceive.Maybe the same thing happens in the space between them too. Look let's try and keep this to the physical 3 D realm please.:)

origin

11-16-11, 02:27 PM

Maybe the same thing happens in the space between them too. Look let's try and keep this to the physical 3 D realm please.:)

Why this entire thread is a steaming pile of horse apples.:D

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 02:49 PM

Why this entire thread is a steaming pile of horse apples.:DThe problem with your argument is they were entirely based on your opinions and not proof that my hypothesis is faulty. You ought to eat some of those horse apples; good brain food.:)

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 07:03 PM

We were discussing the effects of the Solar Wind (SW). And I looked up the effects of the SW on Mars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Wikipedia on "Atmosphere of Mars"
"History

Mars' atmosphere is believed to have changed over the course of the planet's lifetime, with evidence suggesting the possibility that Mars had large oceans a few billion years ago.[7] As stated in the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, atmospheric pressure on the present day Martian surface only exceeds that of the triple point of water (6.11 hectopascals (0.0886 psi)) in the lowest elevations; at higher elevations water can exist only in solid or vapor form. Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F), significantly lower than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[8]
Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;[9] and
On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar wind interaction.[8]"

So it is clear even at the distance of Mars the SW had a significant effect.

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 07:09 PM

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include

So it is clear even at the distance of Mars the SW MAY HAVE had a significant effect.
Corrected.

And, of course, you seem to be neglecting Mars' lack of of complete magnetosphere.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 07:16 PM

Corrected.

And, of course, you seem to be neglecting Mars' lack of of complete magnetosphere.It was more or less straight from Wikipedia. Lack of magnetosphere certainly would not have helped.
They say the magnetosphere is due to the currents in the iron core, so has Mar's iron core solidified now?

Why do you think Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere?:)

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 07:20 PM

It was more or less straight from Wikipedia.
Except for the erroneous "conclusion".

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Universe_and_Solar_System/magnetic_field.aspx
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34472

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 07:35 PM

Except for the erroneous "conclusion".

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Universe_and_Solar_System/magnetic_field.aspx
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34472

Thanks for those links especiallythe thread. One post took my fancy:

Planetary magnetic fields are believed to be generated by the dynamo effect of rotation within a conductive liquid core or mantle. Earth has its molten nickel-iron outer core. Jupiter and Saturn have huge mantles of liquid metallic hydrogen, which is a superconductor, explaining the enormous extent and intensity of their magnetospheres.

Venus probably has a very similar internal structure to Earth, with a molten iron layer - however, it rotates only once every 243 terrestrial days. This very slow rotation rate is the reason for the absence of a magnetic field; the direction of rotation need not matter.
This was news to me.

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 07:40 PM

I find that Googling before asking questions helps.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 07:47 PM

I find that Googling before asking questions helps.

I'm testing to see how you operate. I see posters on here complain if some just criticises and does not contribute to the science discussions.
How do you rank your own knowledge of science?:)

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 07:52 PM

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 08:03 PM

I find it amusing, and somewhat presumptuous, that you consider yourself to be testing me.
How do I rate my knowledge of science?
Depends which branch...
I gave up on the icky biology stuff at the first opportunity (grammar school specialisation), but was forced to revisit it years later when I started my physics degree course (coverage of some biology being part of the science 101 course).
Chemistry never held much appeal either (but was also revisited in that course).
These forums, there is always a bit of upmanship and ego involved. I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury. I don't want abuse for I don't give it (unless I get a little to much).
:)

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 08:05 PM

I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury.
No, what you mean is that you want people gullible enough to help you invent reasons to support the conclusion you're already reached.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 08:14 PM

No, what you mean is that you want people gullible enough to help you invent reasons to support the conclusion you're already reached.Did I say that? No what I want is just the debate, and help with the equations etc, and we will assess the results as we go along.

It will either be possible or not. Surely you don't have any personal reason that would horrify you if life started on Mercury? You might think it unlikely that's fine but go through the calculations and see if can be discounted entirely.

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 08:18 PM

Did I say that?
You've strongly implied it more than once:

I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury.
If the actual conclusion were open to doubt in your mind then you should have have said you wanted help to discover on which planet life started.

No what I want is just the debate, and help with the equations etc, and we will asses the results as we go along.
Oh yeah. The equations you did years ago and STILL can't find.

It will either be possible or not. Surely you don't have any personal reason that would horrify you if life started on Mercury? You might think it unlikely that's fine but go through the calculations and see if can be discounted entirely.
Apart from the "calculations" (and I'd be very interested to see them) you need a valid reason for thinking so. And so far you've failed entirely to present one.

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 08:26 PM

You've strongly implied it more than once:

If the actual conclusion were open to doubt in your mind then you should have have said you wanted help to discover on which planet life started.

Oh yeah. The equations you did years ago and STILL can't find.

Apart from the "calculations" (and I'd be very interested to see them) you need a valid reason for thinking so. And so far you've failed entirely to present one.I will try and find those (they would have been put in a box and stored somewhere.)

Well if Mercury fails there won't be many others and we are often discussing them at the same time in any case. It is impossible not to extend the conversation quite widely. It will go from one extreme to the other.

The only reason I pick on Mercury is that it was the first planet to develop and to warm in the radiation from the protosun. That is the one and only reason.:)

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 08:29 PM

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 08:33 PM

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.
Hmm...

On the forum I am used to, statements had to be backed up with evidence.

I'm testing to see how you operate.
And giving away far more than you're learning...

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 08:40 PM

Hmm...

And giving away far more than you're learning...I have been full on science for a month and it has been a real refresher course, so I have learnt heaps as they say.
I'm getting on in years so there is a lot of experience to back up what i say.

But you seem moderate in your attitude so if you have advice don't hesitate to tell me.:)

Dywyddyr

11-16-11, 08:44 PM

I'm getting on in years so there is a lot of experience to back up what i say.
Yeah?

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.
You're THAT old?

I doubt it.
(And even if you were all we have is your uncorroborated word).

Robittybob1

11-16-11, 09:09 PM

Yeah?

You're THAT old?

I doubt it.
(And even if you were all we have is your uncorroborated word).I'd scan my birth certificate in (just like Obama did).
Hey I'm taking a break see you again tomorrow.:)

PS: Getting Trippy in on the discussion might be interesting.

Ophiolite

11-17-11, 06:53 AM

In my hypothesis planet formation and abiogenesis occurs in the mid to late proto-sun period (which is much earlier than the Late Heavy Bombardment period) . Temperatures in the accretion disc at Mercury's distance from the sun were sufficiently high over this time interval to preclude the formation of life forms that are carbon based and use water as a solvent.

Major impact events would have continued from the formation of Mercury through the Late Heavy Bombardment phase. These would have imparted sufficient energy to the surface and near subsurface of Mercury to sterilise any proto-life forms that may have emerged.

Either of these objections is sufficient to render your hypothesis falsified. Together they deal it a death blow.

I imagine a lot of the material involved in the Late Heavy Bombardment period was volatile material blown off the inner planets at the time of the Sun becoming a “t Tauri” star. Your imagination is colourful, but lacks any grounding in reality.
1. Volatile material was not blown off the inner planets in the T-Tauri phase.
2. The late heavy bombardment material did not consist of such volatiles.

Any shallow study of current theories on planetary formation would reveal that your imagination was wrong on this point. Any in depth study would reveal how horribly wrong you are.

Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure. I don't believe you have any real understanding of current planetary formation theory. It makes discussion on these points almost fruitless for me and simply contrary for you.

Robittybob1

11-17-11, 07:43 AM

Temperatures in the accretion disc at Mercury's distance from the sun were sufficiently high over this time interval to preclude the formation of life forms that are carbon based and use water as a solvent.

Major impact events would have continued from the formation of Mercury through the Late Heavy Bombardment phase. These would have imparted sufficient energy to the surface and near subsurface of Mercury to sterilise any proto-life forms that may have emerged.

Either of these objections is sufficient to render your hypothesis falsified. Together they deal it a death blow.

Your imagination is colourful, but lacks any grounding in reality.
1. Volatile material was not blown off the inner planets in the T-Tauri phase.
2. The late heavy bombardment material did not consist of such volatiles.

Any shallow study of current theories on planetary formation would reveal that your imagination was wrong on this point. Any in depth study would reveal how horribly wrong you are.

QUOTE=Robittybob1;2856474] Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure.

I don't believe you have any real understanding of current planetary formation theory. It makes discussion on these points almost fruitless for me and simply contrary for you.

OK we disagree on a few ideas. Look I have done a lot of "research" on the planet building process and I think I have cracked it. I just laugh when I see the current accepted theories being discussed. "So wrong" in my estimation.
I can't quite remember if I have explained my planet building process yet. (I have typed this into 2 other forums recently so it gets difficult to track it all, but in time I will get to it.)
Hang on in there till you see it OK.:)

AlexG

11-17-11, 09:30 AM

There's no real discussion with a crank.

Robittybob1

11-17-11, 01:32 PM

There's no real discussion with a crank.I am willing to discuss everything anytime. You are welcome to join in.:)

Robittybob1

11-17-11, 02:31 PM

As you might realise I favour the Compressed Earth as an Early Earth stage. How can the early Earth become compressed? So that is why I introduce these advocates for this scenario. Note I don't go along entirely with what they say but the idea of the compressed Earth is based on their scientific data.
From Wikipedia On the subject of Expanding Earth.
"Present day advocates

Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.

Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"

Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J Marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"

el es

11-17-11, 09:25 PM

Why do some people think life started somewhere else?

Why does the grass look greener on the other side of the fence?

Robittybob1

11-17-11, 11:55 PM

Why do some people think life started somewhere else?

Why does the grass look greener on the other side of the fence?
The answers are in the thread.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The greener grass is found by reading.
The rest is in your head.

Think about it!:)

Ophiolite

11-18-11, 06:35 AM

OK we disagree on a few ideas. The ideas we disagree on are these:
1. You believe that science can be conducted by ignoring large amounts of information and disregarding completely well researched and validated current theories. I don't agree.
2. You believe conditions suitable for the origin of life existed on Mercury early in the solar system's history. I don't agree.

So, you are correct, we disagree on only a couple of things.

Look I have done a lot of "research" on the planet building process and I think I have cracked it.
What is the nature of this researcht hat you have done? I should like to know.

Unlike you I have done very little research on the planet building process. My research is limited to the following:

1. Studying the relevant chapters of established textbooks on astronomy, such as The Academic Press Encyclopedia of the Solar System; Astronomy and Cosmology by Fred Hoyle; Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics by Zeilik and Gregory; etc.
2. studying related material on planet formation in texts such as Earthlike Planets by Murray et al; The Chemistry of Atmospheres by Richard Wayne; The Geology of Mars by Thomas Mutch; Planetary Vulcanism by Peter Cattermole; Venus II - Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere and Solar Wind Environment by Bougher et al; Planetary Science - A Lunar Perspective by Stuart Ross Taylor; Lunar Stratigraphy and Sedimentology by J.F. Lindsay; etc.
3. Studying relevant geochemistry in textbooks such as Principles of Geochemistry by Brian Mason; Introduction to Geochemistry by Konrad B. Krauskopf; Geochemistry by W.M.white; etc.
4. Studying information on meteoroids and other accretionary remnants in the foregoing items; and in Chondrules and Their Origin by Elbert King; and in more than one hundred and twenty research papers.
4. Studing the character of exoplanet systems in over sixty research papers.
6. Studying the specifics of planetary formation in over one hundred research papers.

This minimal exposure to the current concepts surrounding planetary formation equips me ask some relevant questions about the process. It does not enable me to offer any deep answers. I wait in great anticipation to learn how your extensive research has allowed you to 'crack the planet building process'. I especially look forward to you explaining how the ideas, based upon tens of thousands of hours of research by hundreds of researchers, are 'wrong'. I'm sure once you have laid out their foolish errors for all to see we will be able to laugh along with you.
,

Robittybob1

11-18-11, 09:45 AM

@Ophiolite
I'm impressed, but also slightly sorry that you spent so much time writing up that reply to me. In fact as I was reading it, I was thinking I want this person on my team.
Are you saying in all those texts they still don't have doubts about any part of the planet building process?

What I "found" was that planet building is different when it is performed in the protosun period. So did any of those articles mention planet building in the protosun period?

How would a protosun build a planet? Have you thought about that? Read about it? Do they propose torus shaped dust bands and accretion within them?

One of the experiments I did was to put dust into a fluid and swirled it around. It did naturally form bands as it slowed. Bands in the protoplanetary disc, who mentions that?

Ophiolite

11-18-11, 10:38 AM

Robittybob1

11-19-11, 12:34 AM

@Ophiolite
Thanks and i'll be pleased to hear from you next week.:)

Robittybob1

11-19-11, 01:31 AM

It took very little time to write up and reminded me that I haven't done much reading in the area lately.

Of course there are doubts about planetary formation, but these doubts are steadily being resolved. Before you can challenge current theory I really think you have to understand it and this you clearly do not. I have to disappear now and have no home internet access at present. I'll select a handful of the more useful papers for you to read and provide links to them next week.

You could start by googling for the Nice model and Levinson, or Morbidelli.
When I read the Nice Model for planet building it makes me feel sick. http://www.analogsf.com/1003/altview_03.shtml
The Bode's Law has lost it's popularity but to me it is an indicator that there is a much simpler system for planet building yet to be discovered, and if I must say so myself I like my method. I wonder what the older planet building models were?

The regularity of the Solar System’s planetary orbits was noted as early as 1715, and in 1768 Johann Bode proposed a “law” stating that the orbits of the planets in AU could be predicted by a mathematical relation, which we can now write as Rn = [4 + (3/2) 2n]/10, where n = 1, 2, 3, . . . for the planets from Venus to Neptune, with n = 4 corresponding to a “missing planet” at roughly the orbital radius of the asteroid belt. The orbit of Mercury (n = 0) doesn’t quite fit the systematics of the model and has a value of R0 = 4/10. But is this regularity an accident or an indication of some systematic natural process? It now looks like an accident, in that a new model of planetary orbits suggests that a chaotic catastrophe in the early Solar System produced the present orbits of the outer planets.

Chaos of the Nice model is so unlikely to end up with the regular pattern of planet arrangement.