0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
One is a closed hydrological system with freezing at the top for desalinization and radioactive heating at the bottom for convection. This concentrates the inorganic elements necessary for biology at the top.
The second system is surface transport by impact ejection and UV induced electrostatic levitation. The latter process is important for small particles that collectively have a high surface area for absorption of small reactive organic molecules. e.g., HCN and HCHO.
The concentrations will still be quite low since they will have been diluted by the atmosphere.
Carbonaceous chondrites have already undergone the process of forming high molecular weight molecules that I described in my section on underground aquifers.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 03:20:37One is a closed hydrological system with freezing at the top for desalinization and radioactive heating at the bottom for convection. This concentrates the inorganic elements necessary for biology at the top.Such a thing could also exist on Earth.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 03:20:37The second system is surface transport by impact ejection and UV induced electrostatic levitation. The latter process is important for small particles that collectively have a high surface area for absorption of small reactive organic molecules. e.g., HCN and HCHO.So how do those molecules get into what you call a "closed" hydrological system?
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 03:20:37The concentrations will still be quite low since they will have been diluted by the atmosphere.Unless they are formed below the surface,
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 03:20:37Carbonaceous chondrites have already undergone the process of forming high molecular weight molecules that I described in my section on underground aquifers. Yes, things like amino acids, ribose and nucleotides (which are important for life). Ribose itself is a high energy molecule: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ribose-sugar-needed-life-has-been-detected-meteorites , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11542462 , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161613/Other simple organic molecules are known as well, such as acetone, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/maps.13202However, hydrogen cyanide can be found in meteorites: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L27 The same can be said for formaldehyde: https://www.nature.com/articles/236155a0
I do not know of a single case.
They do not inorganically form below the surface. There is no plausible energy source.
Enantiomeric excesses in some of the stones in these meteorites show that their parent body was the satellite I have been talking about.
What maths?
If there was enough 26Al to melt Vesta then what happened on Earth?It's about 25 times bigger so (for the same composition) that's a 25 fold higher power density at the surface.That needs to be radiated off as heat.Radiative cooling scales as the 4th power of the temperature.So 25 times more power per square meter needs a temperature 25^ 0.25= about 2.3 times higherRocks- quartz for example- melt at about 1700C or 2000 KAnd if the temperature of VEsta reached that, the temperature of Earth should have reached about 4500KBut quartz boils at about 2300CSo, if the heat generation in Vega was high enough to melt it, the temperature of the Earth should have been high enough to boil it.We are here.It didn't boil.
Vesta has hydroxyl radicals.
The moons of Mars have organic compounds plus Mars ejecta. These plus the orbits of the moons are indicative of the disruption of the satellite system by a close encounter with Mars.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 05:03:00I do not know of a single case.So I suppose you can point to a known case on an asteroid (or anywhere)?
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 05:03:00They do not inorganically form below the surface. There is no plausible energy source.This suggests that hydrogen cyanide can come from (or be formed by) hydrothermal vents: http://astrobiology.com/2019/01/origin-of-lifes-building-blocks-in-carbon-and-nitrogen-rich-surface-hydrothermal-vents.html
My complaint about your epistomology is that you are stopping progress by bring up hypotheticals that are unknown
Enantiomeric excesses in some of the stones in these meteorites show that their parent body was the satellite
You score one point for finding someone who thinks it is plausible,
Quote from: larens on 12/05/2020 22:25:27What maths? The maths you can't refute so you are pretending it doesn't exist.
Quote from: larens on 12/05/2020 22:25:27Vesta has hydroxyl radicals.So has interstellar space.https://science.sciencemag.org/content/157/3791/881And so has Earth.So their presence on Vesta is nothing special.
Quote from: larens on 12/05/2020 22:25:27 The moons of Mars have organic compounds plus Mars ejecta. These plus the orbits of the moons are indicative of the disruption of the satellite system by a close encounter with Mars.So, there is some evidence that something hit Mars.But your evidence is just as much supportive of an alien spaceship as it is of a satellite of Vesta.I'm not saying it was aliens- I'm just pointing out that it could have been anything.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 05:03:00 Enantiomeric excesses in some of the stones in these meteorites show that their parent body was the satellite Anything with quartz in it contains enantiomeric stone.It is certainly not rare.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40You score one point for finding someone who thinks it is plausible, OK, so you can't count. Two authorsPaul B Rimmer, Oliver Shorttlethink it's plausible, the editor must have, and so do I.
And if your molten Vesta's satellite is allowed to have nitrogen, so is his magma.
because cooling time is dominated by thermal conductivity, not radiation.
I only allow one point per article. With the large collection of people associated with today's articles it would be too hard to count otherwise.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 20:14:27because cooling time is dominated by thermal conductivity, not radiation.Really?Why?Is it, in part, because the heat generation process is slow?What would happen if, instead of the billion year timescale of uranium, thorium and potassium, it was due to the million year timescale of 26Al ?
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 20:14:27I only allow one point per article. With the large collection of people associated with today's articles it would be too hard to count otherwise.Obviously, counting as far as two is a problem for some people.
My complaint about your epistemology is that you are stopping progress by bring up hypotheticals that are unknown in a highly studied environment.
He assumes a hypothetical nitrogen rich magma without showing why it should exist.
The basic objection is that quenching the HCN solution in the ocean would dilute it.
Well technically life could have colonized another carbonaceous chondritic body. I was using Occam's razor. I have already addresses the issue of why life started on a satellite of Vesta.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40My complaint about your epistemology is that you are stopping progress by bringing up hypotheticals that are unknown in a highly studied environment. There are quite a few areas of Earth that are not well studied, especially underground. Just how much of Antarctica's subsurface has been explored? Then you have to consider that such a hypothetical system would have necessarily existed at least 3.5 billion years ago and thus may no longer be around. I'm not ruling out such a system on an asteroid, but I'm also not ruling it out of the Earth's deep past. It's different to say that such a system could exist on an asteroid and that it probably existed on an asteroid.
My complaint about your epistemology is that you are stopping progress by bringing up hypotheticals that are unknown in a highly studied environment.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40You score one point for finding someone who thinks it is plausible,If you're counting points for scientists who think life started on Earth, then I could earn an awful lot of points if I went looking for names. If there are biochemists (people who actually know how the chemistry of life works as their job) who think life originating on Earth is plausible, then I would tend to think that it is plausible.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40He assumes a hypothetical nitrogen rich magma without showing why it should exist.He speaks on that in his paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08542 The gist seems to be that an accumulation of nitrogen over time in our atmosphere could be evidence of outgassing of nitrogen from magma billions of years ago.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40The basic objection is that quenching the HCN solution in the ocean would dilute it.A surface hydrothermal vent need not expel its contents into an ocean.
Quote from: larens on 13/05/2020 19:22:40Well technically life could have colonized another carbonaceous chondritic body. I was using Occam's razor. I have already addressed the issue of why life started on a satellite of Vesta.Those organic substances (particularly nucleobases) have been found in a wide variety of different meteorites belonging to different groups. Amino acids were found in both the Murchison and Allende meteorites, which belong to different groups as well. Without any good evidence to link them together, it's unlikely that they all originated from the same parent body.
Well technically life could have colonized another carbonaceous chondritic body. I was using Occam's razor. I have already addressed the issue of why life started on a satellite of Vesta.
Ice is melting at the bottom of large glaciers, not freezing.
Invoking the lack of knowledge of the Earth's deep past is again just invoking hypotheticals with no real support.
They have never been good at assessing a radically new theory.
It also had ingassed He-3 from the nebula, but over 99% of that has since outgassed.
It will, however, have to exit into another body of water or will form a thermal plume that mixes it into the atmosphere. If might be reconcentrated in an endorheic lake, but with alI the minerals I want to see a plausible scenario where the reactive molecules survive long enough to be available for biochemistry.
The enantiomeric excesses are what links them together. Differences in composition look like different stages in the development of the parent body. The meteorites are a mixture of different stones, probably from pebble accretion. Abiotic organic molecules are also found so that was going on in parallel.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58Ice is melting at the bottom of large glaciers, not freezing.I didn't say anything about glaciers.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58Invoking the lack of knowledge of the Earth's deep past is again just invoking hypotheticals with no real support.The same could be said of your natural nuclear reactor on an asteroid. Mutations are not evidence for a reactor because mutations can have many different causes.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58They have never been good at assessing a radically new theory.So biochemists don't understand biochemistry? Okay then...
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58 It also had ingassed He-3 from the nebula, but over 99% of that has since outgassed. Helium is significantly more volatile than nitrogen. Nitrogen has also been detected from modern volcanic gases: https://phys.org/news/2020-04-tool-volcanic-eruptions.html And even minus naturally-sourced nitrogen, organic molecules delivered on carbonaceous chondrites (like the kind I've posted about before) can still supply a source for them on early Earth.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58It will, however, have to exit into another body of water or will form a thermal plume that mixes it into the atmosphere. If might be reconcentrated in an endorheic lake, but with alI the minerals I want to see a plausible scenario where the reactive molecules survive long enough to be available for biochemistry.Unless it happened in a spring without those minerals.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 02:50:58The enantiomeric excesses are what links them together. Differences in composition look like different stages in the development of the parent body. The meteorites are a mixture of different stones, probably from pebble accretion. Abiotic organic molecules are also found so that was going on in parallel.And another possibility is that they look different because they came from different sources. Whatever you propose could cause enantiomeric excesses on your satellite could also cause them on other asteroids. Since that is a distinct possibility, then there is no particular reason to assume that they came from your hypothetical satellite.
Your argument rather reminds me of someone here earlier who was posting data of coal fly ash in the atmosphere as evidence for chemtrails. His hypothesis predicted the existence of coal fly ash in the atmosphere, and, when he found it, he claimed that this was support for his hypothesis that chemtrails exist. Yet coal fly ash is also produced by coal power plants. Thus, his data was not evidence that the ash came from chemtrails in particular. So results being consistent with a hypothesis are not necessarily supporting evidence for that hypothesis.
Likewise, although all of those meteorites coming from your satellite would be consistent with your hypothesis, they do not support it because there is no way of knowing that they didn't come from the other millions of asteroids that are out there (unless, perhaps, they all had identical isotopic ratios).
Except that Vesta is an igneous body without an atmosphere.
There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.To be a satellite of Vesta, the place you have in mind must have been smaller than Vesta- with in principle- practically no lower limit in size.How come it isn't "too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life."?