[Bored chemist]

inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted.

Sounds rather like Earth.

[Kryptid]

You asked about Antarctica. It is almost completely covered in a giant glacier.

Today. Billions of years ago, that may not have been the case. A landscape need not be covered with a glacier in order to have sub-zero temperatures. It's not like Antarctica is the only place such a system could have existed.

The mutation age for Photosystem I, assuming a typical rate of mutation, is enormous - over 10 billion years.

What is this "Photosystem I" you speak of? "Typical mutation rate" doesn't have much of a meaning, given that mutation rates vary massively from one entity to another. The mutation rate of humans is far less than that of, say, HIV. How was that "over 10 billion years" date calculated? Please tell me they didn't:

(1) Assume that the very first organism contained a single nucleotide. Far more than that is needed.
(2) Assume that the mutations happened one at a time either. A large population of microbes will be able to have many total mutations in a single generation due to their numbers.
(3) Assume that each mutation caused the genome to change by a single nucleotide. Gene duplication can cause the introduction of many new nucleotides at once. Chromosomal duplication can do far more and entire genome duplication can double the size of the genome.

Only a natural nuclear reactor is plausible to create such great mutation.

Okay then. Show the math to support that claim. Also keep in mind that an excessive mutation rate is lethal for any organism.

The large majority of biochemists study the biology of today. A minority studies the last 3.5 billion years. Only a few have tried to seriously understand the origin of life because there has been a scarcity of data and no good models.

So you know more than those that do study it? Are you a scientist yourself of any kind?

What you have mostly been getting is a lot of half baked speculation.

Which is the same thing that you have been providing. You are speculating that Vesta had a satellite. You are speculating that it happened to have just the right conditions for life. The fact that Vesta has some organic material on its surface is not evidence that it ever had a satellite. Collisions from many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time can explain that surface organic material just as easily as a collision from a large carbonaceous satellite can (same thing for Mars' moons). Even if there was a large carbonaceous chondrite in orbit around Vesta, there is no evidence whatsoever that it had life on it. To say that it did would be speculation (which, ironically, you don't seem to like).

We are talking about hydrogen, not nitrogen.

Since when? The article is about nitrogen-enriched magma.

Is it not a much more reasonable hypothesis that the precursor chemicals in carbonaceous chondrites developed into life on their parent body

When the parent body's characteristics are completely unknown? No. To say that it would have been would be, as you put it, "half-baked speculation".

rather than having fragments fall on the Earth and having their chemicals diluted into the terrestrial environment?

Whether or not they were diluted would depend upon where they landed.

A hydrothermal vent is far too hot for life.

The water need not stay in the vent. It could have periodically emptied into a shallow pool where it cooled over time.

As I said before I am using Occam's razor.

Occam's razor does not suggest that all organic molecules came from the same asteroid any more than it suggests that all of the trash beside the highway came from the same car.

The difference is that my model does not have an obvious alternative source. People keep claiming that the Earth is an alternative source, and I keep showing that hypothesis is only supported by half baked speculation. In his case one can just take a few photographs of coal plants.

It's half-baked speculation to claim that an object that we've never seen before just so happened to be the perfect abode for life to develop when no other spot in the Solar System could.

There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.

I didn't say anything about developing life. I was talking about producing organic molecules like ribose, amino acids and nucleotides. The conditions to produce those need not be anywhere near so perfect as those needed to create fully-fledged living things. Even liquid water need not be present. Studies have shown that amino acids can form in ice: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/513141 Same thing for ribose: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2083425-missing-building-block-of-life-could-be-made-on-ice-in-space/

Ice can support RNA replication: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1076

Because at the time it was inside the orbit of Mars

I'm curious to know what the evidence for this is.

[larens (OP)]

inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted.

Sounds rather like Earth.

Except that Earth is not made of carbonaceous chrondrites and it melted.

[Bored chemist]

inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted.

Sounds rather like Earth.

Except that Earth is not made of carbonaceous chrondrites and it melted.

What is magical about chondrites?

[larens (OP)]

What is magical about chondrites?

Carbonaceous  chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.

[Kryptid]

Carbonaceous  chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.

Carbonaceous chondrites are still falling to Earth even today. So you'd expect plenty of them to have fallen to Earth in the distant past too. So Earth would have had those same substances.

[Bored chemist]

What is magical about chondrites?

Carbonaceous  chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.

And why don't you think that things like HCN would be present on Earth?
I know that HCN is not stable in the presence of water. (The hydrolysis  half life is about a year, but strongly pH dependent) But even today there is about 0.2ppb of it.
Before plants created oxygen there would have been much more- you have seen the famous experiments with sparks in jars full of gas. The principle means of removal from air today is oxidation.

And, as Kryptid pointed out, we receive a supply of these materials even today. More would survive the trip in the days before there was significant oxygen in the air.

So there is nothing "magical" about chondrites.


Even if chondrites contained "unobtanium"- impossible to get from anything other than chondrites, there would be "unobtanium" on Earth, brought here by chondrites.

[larens (OP)]

You asked about Antarctica. It is almost completely covered in a giant glacier.

Today. Billions of years ago, that may not have been the case. A landscape need not be covered with a glacier in order to have sub-zero temperatures. It's not like Antarctica is the only place such a system could have existed.

You are going backwards in the conversation and becoming more like BoredChemist - hypotheticals in the abstract.

The mutation age for Photosystem I, assuming a typical rate of mutation, is enormous - over 10 billion years.

What is this "Photosystem I" you speak of?

Photosynthesis uses two different biochemical systems that absorb different photons to raise the energy level higher.

"Typical mutation rate" doesn't have much of a meaning, given that mutation rates vary massively from one entity to another. The mutation rate of humans is far less than that of, say, HIV. How was that "over 10 billion years" date calculated?

Humans are not in competition with the immune systems of their hosts. The authors used typical cellular genomics.

Please tell me they didn't:

(1) Assume that the very first organism contained a single nucleotide. Far more than that is needed.

I am sure they didn't.

(2) Assume that the mutations happened one at a time either. A large population of microbes will be able to have many total mutations in a single generation due to their numbers.
(3) Assume that each mutation caused the genome to change by a single nucleotide. Gene duplication can cause the introduction of many new nucleotides at once. Chromosomal duplication can do far more and entire genome duplication can double the size of the genome.

Standard genomics takes such things into account.

Only a natural nuclear reactor is plausible to create such great mutation.

Okay then. Show the math to support that claim. Also keep in mind that an excessive mutation rate is lethal for any organism.

Evolution would have eliminated any such lethal rate caused by chemical or biological systems. The ability to cut down on the radiation induced mutation rate is limited though the most radiation resistant organisms have developed quite a tolerance. To get an idea of how damaging a nuclear reactor can be hang out in one for a while and see how long you live.

The large majority of biochemists study the biology of today. A minority studies the last 3.5 billion years. Only a few have tried to seriously understand the origin of life because there has been a scarcity of data and no good models.

So you know more than those that do study it? Are you a scientist yourself of any kind?

Biochemists are suffering from cognitive dissonant propaganda backing the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth. This means they believe the dogma more strongly because the arguments for it are full of lethal flaws. This is well established psychology. I am an independent scientist so I can get around the groupthink. I read establishment articles and ignore the flaws except for understanding cognitive dissonance.

My specialty is the theory of general simplicity, i.e., using different types of simplicity to construct a general model of reality. For instance, today I am looking at how to derive the extended Standard Model of particle physics from pure math. The Higgs mechanism has a nice geometrical interpretation. Neutrino physics is giving me a hard time. With the help from empirical data I know that neutrino masses are in the ratios of 2, 18, and 98 to the mass of the axion. These geometrically must come from a pseudoscalar, 3-D space, and 7-D space-time-mass that includes the light cone, but I have not found an exact mathematical formulation.

In parallel I have been finding better and simpler explanations for the cubic equation x^3 + x^2 -2x - 1 = 0 which is about probability distribution scaling. It has to be factored out of the exceptional quantum mechanics observable so that there are not unrealistic probability nodes. You then get the 9 energy dimensions for matter with time running forward and backward being distinguishable. If you think this opaque, try A.A. Albert's original paper in 1965 on Albert division algebras. I found only one other paper on the subject, but it included the cubic equation above (which I had already determined was the correct one). The analysis led to some prize winning work in the UCB math department, so it confirmed that this approach was not tangential. Since then I have found a lot more compatibility with fundamental physics and general simplicity.

What you have mostly been getting is a lot of half baked speculation.

Which is the same thing that you have been providing. You are speculating that Vesta had a satellite. You are speculating that it happened to have just the right conditions for life. The fact that Vesta has some organic material on its surface is not evidence that it ever had a satellite. Collisions from many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time can explain that surface organic material just as easily as a collision from a large carbonaceous satellite can (same thing for Mars' moons). Even if there was a large carbonaceous chondrite in orbit around Vesta, there is no evidence whatsoever that it had life on it. To say that it did would be speculation (which, ironically, you don't seem to like).

You do not understand the nature of evidence. Using previously determined facts and reasonable assumptions one makes a coherent model with mutually reinforcing facts. If it large and coherent enough, it is taken as evidence for the assumptions. Most people are stuck at a Statistics 101 level of description of science or worse.

We are talking about hydrogen, not nitrogen.

Since when? The article is about nitrogen-enriched magma.

The article with the details was about a "ultrareducing carbon-rich nitrogen-rich magma". It is hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when you do not read the technical details in the literature you cite. In this case you had to follow a secondary citation.

Is it not a much more reasonable hypothesis that the precursor chemicals in carbonaceous chondrites developed into life on their parent body

When the parent body's characteristics are completely unknown? No. To say that it would have been would be, as you put it, "half-baked speculation".

Go back and read what I have been saying about model building and the nature of evidence.

A hydrothermal vent is far too hot for life.

The water need not stay in the vent. It could have periodically emptied into a shallow pool where it cooled over time.

That pool would have been coated with the transition metal minerals that precipitate when you cool down vent fluid.

As I said before I am using Occam's razor.

Occam's razor does not suggest that all organic molecules came from the same asteroid any more than it suggests that all of the trash beside the highway came from the same car.

It does, however, cut off endless tangents that have no relevance to one's model.

The difference is that my model does not have an obvious alternative source. People keep claiming that the Earth is an alternative source, and I keep showing that hypothesis is only supported by half baked speculation. In his case one can just take a few photographs of coal plants.

It's half-baked speculation to claim that an object that we've never seen before just so happened to be the perfect abode for life to develop when no other spot in the Solar System could.

Why? It must have started somewhere. The requirement for homochirality, makes multiple sources unlikely. Half of the alternative sources would at first be toxic for any given source. The chemical evidence points to the unregulated production of L-polyserine as the means by which the first organism dominated. The evidence from fundamental science for the Unique Earth Hypothesis strongly points to there being just one very unusual location.

There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.

I didn't say anything about developing life. I was talking about producing organic molecules like ribose, amino acids and nucleotides. The conditions to produce those need not be anywhere near so perfect as those needed to create fully-fledged living things. Even liquid water need not be present. Studies have shown that amino acids can form in ice: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/513141

Remember that this topic is about the origin of life. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation when you repeatedly forget what the topic is and go off on tangents.

Because at the time it was inside the orbit of Mars

I'm curious to know what the evidence for this is.

I am not going to repeat it again. I have already stated it enough times for those who remember things.

Carbonaceous  chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.

Carbonaceous chondrites are still falling to Earth even today. So you'd expect plenty of them to have fallen to Earth in the distant past too. So Earth would have had those same substances.

Are you familiar with Gibbs free energy which is diminished when you dilute things?

[Kryptid]

You are going backwards in the conversation and becoming more like BoredChemist - hypotheticals in the abstract.

Your satellite is hypothetical, so we're in good company. Heck, you even call it a hypothesis:

The first phrase in my OP says that I am presenting an hypothesis.

A satellite is not necessary to explain the presence of organic material on Vesta, so other reasonable interpretations are valid.

Humans are not in competition with the immune systems of their hosts.

And? It's not like the first living things were anywhere close to being human-like. Nor would their gene-repair mechanisms have been nearly as refined. High mutation rates would be expected to be the norm.

The authors used typical cellular genomics.

Can you supply us with a link to this? If the 10 billion year figure is accurate, that would also be consistent with panspermia from an older star system. So then you'd need some kind of way to distinguish between your scenario and a panspermia scenario.

Evolution would have eliminated any such lethal rate caused by chemical or biological systems. The ability to cut down on the radiation induced mutation rate is limited though the most radiation resistant organisms have developed quite a tolerance. To get an idea of how damaging a nuclear reactor can be hang out in one for a while and see how long you live.

Are there any known organisms that can survive inside of an operating nuclear reactor? If so, what is their mutation rate?

Biochemists are suffering from cognitive dissonant propaganda backing the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth.

Yeah, once you start mentioning "propaganda" and "dogma", you know you're probably dealing with a crank. I hear the exact same kind of complaints about evolutionary biologists by creationists.

I am an independent scientist

So you're an actual scientist? What is your profession? What company do you work for?

My specialty is the theory of general simplicity

Theory? So it has been experimentally tested and passed?

You do not understand the nature of evidence. Using previously determined facts and reasonable assumptions one makes a coherent model with mutually reinforcing facts.

I'm well aware of what evidence constitutes. But when each individual point of "evidence" has an alternative possible explanation, then the model as a whole becomes weak. Organic material on Vesta can be explained by impacts of many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time. Same thing for the satellites of Mars. The organic material on meteorites can be explained by organic material forming on a multitude of different asteroids involving UV-light acting on organically-contaminated ice. Whatever mechanism you propose could cause an enantiomeric excess on your satellite could do the same on other asteroids. If the high mutation rate did require a natural nuclear reactor, we know that those have existed on Earth in the past so that's not a problem. Since all of the evidence has plausible alternative interpretations, the "satellite of Vesta" hypothesis is relegated to just that: a hypothesis.

The article with the details was about a "ultrareducing carbon-rich nitrogen-rich magma". It is hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when you do not read the technical details in the literature you cite. In this case you had to follow a secondary citation.

And the point, of course, was that magma as a source of nitrogen is plausible. Hydrated minerals, water and/or methane is a decent enough source of hydrogen. And even if the magma didn't have enough nitrogen or hydrogen, meteorites bringing ribose, nucleotides and amino acids to Earth is another plausible source of those molecules.

Go back and read what I have been saying about model building and the nature of evidence.

All of your evidence can be explained in other ways.

It does, however, cut off endless tangents that have no relevance to one's model.

It also apparently cuts of alternative interpretations of the evidence.

Why? It must have started somewhere.

And, since you like Occam's razor so much, it would be better to look at places that we actually know exist than proposing those that can have absolutely any desired properties of the model-maker.

The requirement for homochirality, makes multiple sources unlikely.

Unless whatever causes homochirality is available at multiple locations. That being said, what mechanism do you propose caused homochirality on your satellite?

The evidence from fundamental science for the Unique Earth Hypothesis strongly points to there being just one very unusual location.

Which means that there would be two very unusual locations if your satellite produced life and the Earth then happened to have just the right characteristics to allow the life transported there to develop and thrive into an entire biosphere (including intelligent species) unlike anything we've seen in other places in the Solar System.

Remember that this topic is about the origin of life. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation when you repeatedly forget what the topic is and go off on tangents.

So now you are saying that the chemical reactions needed to produce vital biochemical molecules is not "about the origin of life". Right...

I am not going to repeat it again. I have already stated it enough times for those who remember things.

You mentioned something about the organic material on the satellites of Mars as evidence for this, but it is just as possible that completely unrelated carbonaceous chondrites are the source of that organic material. So your claim that this is evidence that Vesta came from the inner Solar System is not compelling.

Are you familiar with Gibbs free energy which is diminished when you dilute things?

Yes, I am familiar with the concept. But that would only be a problem if it's diluted too much. Reservoirs of water come in all sizes.

[larens (OP)]

Carbonaceous  chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.

And why don't you think that things like HCN would be present on Earth?
I know that HCN is not stable in the presence of water. (The hydrolysis  half life is about a year, but strongly pH dependent) But even today there is about 0.2ppb of it.
Before plants created oxygen there would have been much more- you have seen the famous experiments with sparks in jars full of gas. The principle means of removal from air today is oxidation.

Plants and industry also produce most of the HCN whose concentration in the air is currently orders of magnitude below what one needs for a decent chemical reaction. The crust of the early Earth had a neutral redox potential that would have produced very little HCN. I pointed out to Kryptid the flaw in the article claiming otherwise.

Even if chondrites contained "unobtanium"- impossible to get from anything other than chondrites, there would be "unobtanium" on Earth, brought here by chondrites.

Again as I pointed out to Kryptid, bringing it to Earth rather than using it on location would only dilute it.

[larens (OP)]

You are going backwards in the conversation and becoming more like BoredChemist - hypotheticals in the abstract.

Your satellite is hypothetical, so we're in good company. Heck, you even call it a hypothesis:

My hypotheticals are not in the abstract because I provide evidence for them.

The first phrase in my OP says that I am presenting an hypothesis.

A satellite is not necessary to explain the presence of organic material on Vesta, so other reasonable interpretations are valid.

The evidence is for hydrated surface minerals on Vesta, not organic material. It was a surprising find, because it has not been seen on other dehydrated Solar system bodies.

]

Humans are not in competition with the immune systems of their hosts.

And? It's not like the first living things were anywhere close to being human-like. Nor would their gene-repair mechanisms have been nearly as refined. High mutation rates would be expected to be the norm.

Biological photon absorption for photosynthesis was a later system after gene-repair organisms had been refined. Early photon absorption would have been by titania.

The authors used typical cellular genomics.

Can you supply us with a link to this? If the 10 billion year figure is accurate, that would also be consistent with panspermia from an older star system. So then you'd need some kind of way to distinguish between your scenario and a panspermia scenario.

I am not going to supply you with a link when you make a post with 18 mostly irrelevant points. You can always use a search engine.

Interstellar panspermia scenarios are dead because high vacuum destroys RNA with a half-life of a few years, Even with a high vacuum seal interstellar temperatures will freeze all water vapor. Ionizing radiation can provide the necessary excitation.

Evolution would have eliminated any such lethal rate caused by chemical or biological systems. The ability to cut down on the radiation induced mutation rate is limited though the most radiation resistant organisms have developed quite a tolerance. To get an idea of how damaging a nuclear reactor can be hang out in one for a while and see how long you live.

Are there any known organisms that can survive inside of an operating nuclear reactor? If so, what is their mutation rate?

Not in the core. Some can survive on the periphery. I am not sure about their mutation rate. They have very good gene repair mechanisms.

Biochemists are suffering from cognitive dissonant propaganda backing the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth.

Yeah, once you start mentioning "propaganda" and "dogma", you know you're probably dealing with a crank. I hear the exact same kind of complaints about evolutionary biologists by creationists.

The Discovery Institute has some very valid arguments about how the biologists who want to extend evolution back to the origin of life have not come up with a plausible model. "Progresssives" are in denial about how their side also uses fallacious propaganda and dogma. Their mechanisms of denial are quite similar to what I have been experiencing on this forum. The words are standard among philosophical people who take a more objective look at the situation.

I am an independent scientist

So you're an actual scientist? What is your profession? What company do you work for?

If you really understood science, you would have been aware by the nature of my arguments. I told you my profession in the reply from which you are quoting. Why would an independent scientist be working for a company, other perhaps than one of his own creation? I have a shell called Genesis Project, because it is necessary for some interactions.

My specialty is the theory of general simplicity

Theory? So it has been experimentally tested and passed?

It has been been repeatedly tested by new articles confirming it. I am still eliminating some errors, but that is par for the course. I have described a couple of new experiments that might be performed, which I gave in my first topic on this forum and of which you should be aware. My interest in understanding neutrino physics well is that there is a lack of a good overall model and new data is constantly being produced. Other than predicting new data there my option is to be like Einstein and convince people with the elegance of how my theory explains existing data. I understand generally how string theory fits into my theory, but there I am facing a community where they have not required experimental verification and might not like their dogma being run over. Succeeding there would require highly polishing my explanation of the cubic polynomial and how it explains the failure of string theory to produce results that reasonable connect with the rest of physics.

You do not understand the nature of evidence. Using previously determined facts and reasonable assumptions one makes a coherent model with mutually reinforcing facts.

I'm well aware of what evidence constitutes. But when each individual point of "evidence" has an alternative possible explanation, then the model as a whole becomes weak. Organic material on Vesta can be explained by impacts of many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time. Same thing for the satellites of Mars. The organic material on meteorites can be explained by organic material forming on a multitude of different asteroids involving UV-light acting on organically-contaminated ice. Whatever mechanism you propose could cause an enantiomeric excess on your satellite could do the same on other asteroids. If the high mutation rate did require a natural nuclear reactor, we know that those have existed on Earth in the past so that's not a problem. Since all of the evidence has plausible alternative interpretations, the "satellite of Vesta" hypothesis is relegated to just that: a hypothesis.

They are only plausible to you because you are not an expert in the field. My standard for plausibility is much higher. It is higher than the general standards for scientific publication in my specialties. I have already pointed this out.

The article with the details was about a "ultrareducing carbon-rich nitrogen-rich magma". It is hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when you do not read the technical details in the literature you cite. In this case you had to follow a secondary citation.

And the point, of course, was that magma as a source of nitrogen is plausible. Hydrated minerals, water and/or methane is a decent enough source of hydrogen. And even if the magma didn't have enough nitrogen or hydrogen, meteorites bringing ribose, nucleotides and amino acids to Earth is another plausible source of those molecules.

HCN needs a relatively high fugacity for molecular H, C, and N. He was assuming a fugacity for H that was much too high. Methane has a relatively low H fugacity. Electrical discharges in the atmosphere might overcome that, but it is rapidly decomposed by UV. I have already dealt with the fugacity of your other proposed sources under the term "concentration".

Go back and read what I have been saying about model building and the nature of evidence.

All of your evidence can be explained in other ways.

Only if you have really low standards of evidence.

It does, however, cut off endless tangents that have no relevance to one's model.

It also apparently cuts of alternative interpretations of the evidence.

Not at all, I am only using it to cut off irrelevant tangents.

Why? It must have started somewhere.

And, since you like Occam's razor so much, it would be better to look at places that we actually know exist than proposing those that can have absolutely any desired properties of the model-maker.

Well lets take an historical example of how long science tries to verify something that has not yet been verified. The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964. It was experimentally verified about a half century later in about 2014.

The requirement for homochirality, makes multiple sources unlikely.

Unless whatever causes homochirality is available at multiple locations. That being said, what mechanism do you propose caused homochirality on your satellite?

You are missing the point that homochirality comes in two interfering forms. I already said that the biological type came with the unregulated production of L-polyserine.

The evidence from fundamental science for the Unique Earth Hypothesis strongly points to there being just one very unusual location.

Which means that there would be two very unusual locations if your satellite produced life and the Earth then happened to have just the right characteristics to allow the life transported there to develop and thrive into an entire biosphere (including intelligent species) unlike anything we've seen in other places in the Solar System.

Correct. Its good to agree with you once in a while. We have also not seen evidence for it elsewhere in the universe.

Remember that this topic is about the origin of life. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation when you repeatedly forget what the topic is and go off on tangents.

So now you are saying that the chemical reactions needed to produce vital biochemical molecules is not "about the origin of life". Right...

You were not talking about vital molecules. You were talking about abiotic racemic molecules.

I am not going to repeat it again. I have already stated it enough times for those who remember things.

You mentioned something about the organic material on the satellites of Mars as evidence for this, but it is just as possible that completely unrelated carbonaceous chondrites are the source of that organic material. So your claim that this is evidence that Vesta came from the inner Solar System is not compelling.

It is improbable that other carbonaceous chondritic material would appear at that location in those orbits. The moons are quite anomalous.

Are you familiar with Gibbs free energy which is diminished when you dilute things?

Yes, I am familiar with the concept. But that would only be a problem if it's diluted too much. Reservoirs of water come in all sizes.

Cooling ponds have to be large enough to supply the necessary cooling.

[Bored chemist]

- hypotheticals in the abstract.

No.
You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.
Sauce for the goose...

[larens (OP)]

- hypotheticals in the abstract.

No.
You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.
Sauce for the goose...

Albert Einstein doesn't exist. I guess I have to stop talking about him.

[larens (OP)]

With the help from empirical data I know that neutrino masses are in the ratios of 2, 18, and 98 to the mass of the axion. These geometrically must come from a pseudoscalar, 3-D space, and 7-D space-time-mass that includes the light cone, but I have not found an exact mathematical formulation.

My stated assignment to space-time-mass is wrong because time cannot be included. The proper neutrino assignment is the mass dimension, 3-D space, and the light cone. This is consistent with the color flavors of the neutrinos. The squares within the masses correspond to the imaginary dimensions of real division algebras, i.e., complex numbers, quaternions, and octonions. They have to be squared to get real numbers for masses. The common factor of 2 comes from the bidirectionality of lines, which appears in the fundamental cubic polynomial I gave: x^3 + x^2 - 2x - 1 = 0. Problems appear much clearer after I have slept a night on them.

[Bored chemist]

- hypotheticals in the abstract.

No.
You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.
Sauce for the goose...

Albert Einstein doesn't exist. I guess I have to stop talking about him.

OK, let's descent to playground level since that's what you want.
Here is a photograph of Einstein.

Einstein.JPG (18.48 kB . 224x286 - viewed 3116 times)
Please post a photo of your rock.

[larens (OP)]

- hypotheticals in the abstract.

No.
You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.
Sauce for the goose...

Albert Einstein doesn't exist. I guess I have to stop talking about him.

OK, let's descent to playground level since that's what you want.
Here is a photograph of Einstein.

Einstein.JPG (18.48 kB . 224x286 - viewed 3116 times)
Please post a photo of your rock.

Playgrounds are for having fun. Instead of responding to impossible demands I am having fun today surfing through physics and seeing how the many pieces I have learned over the years are unified by general simplicity. I was just reading about the history of the arrow of time problem. The simplest starting point for developing the theory is to point out that elementary arithmetic does not distinguish between forwards and backwards in time when applied to individual particles. We can solve this by dropping the axiom of associativity. The rest of reality then unfolds through the application of general simplicity. The clarification of neutrino physics that I mentioned in my last reply removed the last major conceptual problem blocking me from adopting a more relaxed attitude toward developing my theory.

[Bored chemist]

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

[larens (OP)]

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.

[Bored chemist]

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.

OK, so, swimming through treacle here... what evidence is there that the rock did exist (not might have existed, but DID exist)?

[larens (OP)]

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.

Instead of responding to impossible demands

Backing up your allegation is impossible.
Maybe you shouldn't have made it.

What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.

OK, so, swimming through treacle here... what evidence is there that the rock did exist (not might have existed, but DID exist)?

Let me ask a socioeconomic question. This forum is sponsored by the Naked Scientists, a capitalist organization of academics that are making money selling their services for presenting popular science. As good profit seekers they do not like competition. So they have set up a "New Theories" section promising that it is "On the Lighter Side" and new theories will not be forced to meet full academic standards. Instead their proponents are subjected to a couple of characters who repeatedly trash the discussion by asserting some version of, "You have NOT presented ANY evidence, because you have not considered all the infinite number of possible alternatives!" What is your cut of the action? If not, why aren't you maximizing your profitable activities?