check this out for more details :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=753&e=10&u=/space/20040229/sc_space/marsawaterworldevidencemountsbutscientistsremainti ghtlipped



bye!

Well I hope they do find micro-organisms on Mars, and evidence for past "large quantities of water".

This would then fit well with the fisson theory for planet formation.....which would predict that as the planets in the solar system move away from the Sun, water would be lost to space.... in this case Mars' water is mostly gone.

Venus has no water, and most likely no living organisms... this reinforces the fact that living organisms make water... which explains why the planets past Venus could all have had LIFE in the past and therefore water on the planet's surface.

I await furthur reports..... Thanks

:)

Hi Zarkov,
Why do you think that water is only a product of living organisms?
Does not Hydrogen + Oxygen + Heat produce water from a simple chemical reaction?
Is this not where much water in space (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway_water_010412.html) comes from?

>> Does not Hydrogen + Oxygen + Heat produce water from a simple chemical reaction?

Yep those two make water alright

BUT

in a planet in a raw state, such as shown by Venus, any water produced ( and none would be) would be immediately reacted with other substances.

Basically the slag layer of a planet would be made of compounds of oxygen etc, gases available would be H2S, NH3, CO2, H2SO4, CH4.... you know, everything bar water!!!!

Life makes water eg
For the purple and green sulfur bacteria, hydrogen sulfide is utilized, and the equation is given thus:
CO2 + 2H2S = CH2O + H2O + 2S (sulphur can be replaced by other substances)

This is just one pathway...

Deep within the Earth there is a teaming mass of life eating the planet alive!!!!
Water is an excretion product of the super-organism LIFE....


The traditional "photosynthetic equation" many of us grew up with is as follows:
CO2 + 2H2O = CH2O + H2O + O2 (reverse for animals)

Even with humans, we make more water than we consume, because it can come from C-H bonds
Carbohydrates are hydrated carbon (C- H20 ) it is easy to see that water in water out.

But there are many reactions where -C(H2)- or other hydrogenated carbon skeletons are formed eg by bugs feeding upon methane, which when metabolised by an oxygen consuming organism ...

There are numerous possibilities

For Mars, it looks like no water has been specifically identified... hydrogen peroxide has been found.

There is 'evidence' for past water...... not enough in my book to say water was ever present or not..

So we will have to wait for more exploration.

...... not enough in my book to say water was ever present or not..

...apparently there is enough evidence for NASA to announce with reasonable certainty that there was water on Mars. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/02/mars.findings/index.html)

Yes I have heard the "appears" and 'there is evidence'...etc.

They said that about comets, about Io ( a moon of Jupiter) ........ I am afraid their science leaves much to be desired.

Oh and your "science" and theory is rocktight. You don't know a thing about planetary formation. Venus probably had a lot of water at one point. At some point runaway volcanism took place, this much is for certain. Maybe because of an impact that affected its rotation. The water on the planet would have reacted with other compounds and would be locked away in a different form...just like some of the compounds on Mars they have found. Ones that can't form any other way than by a water process.

Thanks for you opinion blackholesun..... as good as any layman's.

:)

Thanks for you opinion blackholesun..... as good as any layman's.

:)

Have there have been any experiments to test that theory?
It is conceivable that a living life form <i>may</i> create water from the raw materials... but that is a reaction that requires energy, so there would have to be a reason why they would do so...

Is it not simpler to adapt/evolve to a less (drier) energy intensive way of life...

I believe that mars, venus, and the earth originally received most of their water from comets and asteroid impacts. All the oceans on the earth derive from that source, i think . Mars and venus just seems to have lost it, (or most of it...)

So if there was originally all this free water going about, why would any thing evolve to <b>manufacture</b> it , when there is still water remaining.
;)

.>> I believe that mars, venus, and the earth originally received most of their water from comets and asteroid impacts.

Well fair enough you believe what you have been told. Fact, comets do not contain water... Fact asteroids do not contain water. Fact Venus, Mercury do not have water... they are 'new' planets. Venus most likely has been infected by LIFE, it will be modified into a new Earth given time.

Mars was once Earth like, but it has lost its water to space (where it is ionised and totally broken up... water is an 'unnatural compound). With a daily temperature range of over 100 oC, only micro-organisms can still exist there. Basically Mars has become like the Antartica, without the ice.

>> So if there was originally all this free water going about, why would any thing evolve to manufacture it , when there is still water remaining.


Well there just isn't free water laying around unless LIFE has infected the planet and manufactured it.

Once water is manufactured by 'lower life forms' then the super-organism grows into genetically controlled higher forms, utilizing this water..... and life like an ordinary 'plant' we see, similar to the whole super-organism grows to fulfill it's dentiny, it's life cycle... to shed seeds anew into the void of space..... LIFE is an integrated whole, nothing is left to chance.

We are not so special, sorry to say.
:)

Why do you maintain that all water comes from LIFE, when you acknowledge that simple chemical reactions also produce water?

FACT - There is lots of water on Mars, mostly ice at the poles (a combination of CO2 ice and H20 ice). Spectral observations by the Hubble Space telescope also revealed how water moves around Mars and between the icecaps in the form of clouds.

FACT - There is water on the moon, detected by the Lunar Prospector orbiter in levels at about 1% in polar soil.

FACT - there is much water in comets. The nucleus of Comet Halley, for example, was found to be 84% water ice by the Giotto probe.

FACT - There is much water ice in the rings of Saturn, as indicated by infrared spectrum analysis from as early as 1970.

FACT - there is much water happily drifting around in space, mostly as ice deposits on dust grains. See space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway_water_010412.html)

Hi Pete, we shall see about all this inferred water....
Certainly the stardust project has not found water. Mars water is inferred, as is Moon, etc

I expect Mars has some water... left over or continually being made by micro-organisms... and the Moon may have some that has condensed there... but I would be suprised at this.

Basically

>> when you acknowledge that simple chemical reactions also produce water?

Water is a very reactive compound, it is both basic and acidic.... it will react with most metals, and in many cases it will displace other compounds.

I am not sure what your conception of planet formation is, but in the reactive and hot environment of a new planet, any hydrogen and oxygen would preferably bind with other elements rather than each other.... you must remember that the initial temperature was very high and then the planet slowly cooled....

Basic chemistry and the electrochemical reactivity of each of the elements would not produce water as such from the primordial mix of hot reactive elements. I expect that not even the nitrogen in our atmosphere was outgassed as such, ammonia is far more likely.

It is presumed that the oxygen on this planet was made by LIFE, and there is a large quantity of that, the water of this Earth is similarily manufactured.

If you wish to see the chemical composition of the forming Earth without LIFE, see the atmosphere and geology of Venus....
:)

Water is a very reactive compound, it is both basic and acidic.... it will react with most metals, and in many cases it will displace other compounds.

I am not sure what your conception of planet formation is, but in the reactive and hot environment of a new planet, any hydrogen and oxygen would preferably bind with other elements rather than each other.... you must remember that the initial temperature was very high and then the planet slowly cooled....
:)

:confused: :confused: Oxygen is one of the most common elements in the Univesre (after hydrogen and helium) - a product of nucleosynthesis in older stars of solar mass or higher. It is also one of the most reactive elements, as you said. Since hydrogen is by far the most plentiful of elements, it stands to reason that most of the oxygen released by supernovae/planetary nebulae will combine with hydrogen in the interstellar medium: producing water!

Check virtually any modern textbook on planetary formation. Water and other volatiles will be a major constituent of the nebula surrounding a protostar, and build up icy planetisimals which will, in time, form major planets. Frozen water is undeniably present in the crust of Jovian and Saturnian moons, most famously Europa - in fact, some moons, such as Tethys, are so light that they seem to be almost pure ice. Based on their mass and density Uranus and Neptune may be composed mostly of water.

The inner Solar Nebula simply lost most of its original volatiles due to their proximity to the Sun. Only highly refractive substances could condense into solid grains under those temperatures - that's why Mercury is so dry. Earth and Mars would have outgassed lots of water once they condensed, but Mars isn't massive enough to retain a dense atmosphere. So most of its surface water was lost to space.

Thanks Starthane Xyzth

Yep that certainly is established theory.... but is it correct??

You are invoking an accretion process for planet formation....

I disagree on this basic assumption.

>> The inner Solar Nebula simply lost most of its original volatiles due to their proximity to the Sun.

That is convienent.. a stroke of the pen...

However for accretion to have occurred the Moon is an anomoly (core too large)... enter a convienent collision theory..

Yep one theory on another when the overall processes start to negate each other

Fission theory contains all the observed parameters in one theory... and explains why the density of Neptune and Uranus flys in the face of an accretion mechanism for planetary formation.

We shall have to await the core size estimations for other moons....

Meanwhile I do not lke 'Ptolemy style' cosmology.

Scepticism - the mark of a true inquiring mind.

I see what you mean, Zarkov: it's easy to turn the currently accepted theories into infexible dogma.

But what do you mean by 'Ptolemy style'? His was a geocentric cosmology - I doubt anyone believes in that nowadays.

>> But what do you mean by 'Ptolemy style'? His was a geocentric cosmology

Ptolemy 161-180 AD


the epicycle guru who held the Earth stationary (it was decreed by the church, because it was a biblical construct) and had everything else revolve around the Earth.... the Sun, the other planets.... he devised epicycles within epicycles to explain the motions. This was standard text for 1,500 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The church stated humans were made special. therefore the Universe was made for us, therefore we were at the centre,,,,, for why else was the Universe there. Sophist logic, still alive and well... but our job as scientists is to cut right through that illusional hypnotism


It was all a relativity thing.... like GR today.... you can view a system from any frame of reference and still get the correct results !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a load of..........

Spinning systems can only be viewed in one preferred frame of reference and that is from the spinning centre.


So Ptolemy cosmology is firmly planted in illusional science., where when things did not quite work out, an unrelated modification was invoked and so forth, until the model became so complicated that.....

Well along can Galileo..... and science started a new.....

But all the dissident scientists suffered at the hands of dogma.... and they still do.... you can see even today fascist dogmatism is well and truely alive on every internet forum, and in all scientific circles.

:)

Hi Pete, we shall see about all this inferred water....
Certainly the stardust project has not found water. Mars water is inferred, as is Moon, etc

I expect Mars has some water... left over or continually being made by micro-organisms... and the Moon may have some that has condensed there... but I would be suprised at this.

Basically

>> when you acknowledge that simple chemical reactions also produce water?

Water is a very reactive compound, it is both basic and acidic.... it will react with most metals, and in many cases it will displace other compounds.

I am not sure what your conception of planet formation is, but in the reactive and hot environment of a new planet, any hydrogen and oxygen would preferably bind with other elements rather than each other.... you must remember that the initial temperature was very high and then the planet slowly cooled....

Basic chemistry and the electrochemical reactivity of each of the elements would not produce water as such from the primordial mix of hot reactive elements. I expect that not even the nitrogen in our atmosphere was outgassed as such, ammonia is far more likely.

It is presumed that the oxygen on this planet was made by LIFE, and there is a large quantity of that, the water of this Earth is similarily manufactured.

If you wish to see the chemical composition of the forming Earth without LIFE, see the atmosphere and geology of Venus....
:)

Hi Zarkov,
The "Water on Mars" questions at this time are about whether there was once liquid water on Mars in significant quantities.

The existence of water as ice and vapour on Mars is not in doubt, and has not been for many years.

Perhaps you'd also like to check out the other facts of water in other places.
Your hypotheses and reasonings extended from them are interesting, but if they don't fit the facts, do you think there might be a problem?

Why do you doubt the existence of something (such as water on the Moon) when it has been reliably detected? Or is reliability of evidence always dependant on whether it fits with your own cherished ideas?

Hi Pete

>> Or is reliability of evidence always dependant on whether it fits with your own cherished ideas?

LOL, cherished ideas, are you accusing me of being dogmatic ??

I have no doubt small amounts of water maybe found in unusual places, after all Earth is losing water and this may by chance be reformed in remote places.

I may detect gold in my ball point pen, but......it does not make that useful, basically I may detect gold in everything.. even if it is only one atom.....

So basically the crux is...

Where did all the water come from on Earth?... and why isn't it on all the planets in some reasonable quantity?

After all what occurs here occurs there....... but does it? I contend LIFE only can prolifically grow on a hunk of rock only within a certain band from the Sun.

:)

I am afraid IMO theory that was based on obsolete conceptions, is now driving the observations and not the other way around....

Hi Pete

>> Or is reliability of evidence always dependant on whether it fits with your own cherished ideas?

LOL, cherished ideas, are you accusing me of being dogmatic ??
Yes.

I really can't understand why you're so reluctant to acknowledge that water is the result of chemical reactions, and has been detected in large quantities on Mars, in comets, and floating around in Space?

This isn't based on theory, it's a direct observation.


What is the reason for your contention that water is only produced by life? Are you basing this contention on observations, or are you being dogmatic about an obsolete conception?

Pete, I am a scientist, been practicing for over 40 years.... I weigh evidence, I integrate this information with all else I deem to be reliable.

As a biochemist this is my contention.

I know enough about remote viewing to know nothing is what it seems....
I have a lot of evidence for a fission mechanism that created the Solar System.... and I expect all other systems. that are in the Universe.

You really need to look at the properties of water... it is most unique...and reactive..

WATER :- Water is an unusual "artificial" compound, it is made by LIFE and IMO all water found in the Universe has come from a biological process. Together with oxygen on this planet, which has been released in an elemental form by LIFE, these two substances are the vital fluids that complete the body of whole super-organism, LIFE.

Properties of Water

1* High melting point (0°C, c.f. CHCl3 -63°C) In ice, all water molecules participate in four hydrogen bonds (two as donor and two as acceptor) and are held relatively static.

2* High boiling point (100°C, c.f. CHCl3 61°C) There is considerable hydrogen bonding in liquid water which prevents water molecules from being easily released from the water's surface

3* High critical point (374°C, c.f. CH3CH3 32°C) The critical point can only be reached when the interactions between the water molecules fall below a certain threshold level.

4* High surface tension (72.75 mJ/m2, c.f. CCl4 26.6 mJ/m2 at 20°C) Water molecules at the liquid surface are pulled laterally and towards the bulk by the remaining stronger hydrogen bond

5* High viscosity (0.89 cP, c.f. pentane 0.22 cP, at 25°C)) The viscosity of a liquid is determined by the ease with which molecules can move relative to each other

6* High heat of vaporization (40.7 kJ mol-1, c.f. H2S 18.7 kJ mol-1) There is still considerable hydrogen bonding (~75%) in water at 100°C

7* Shrinks on melting When water freezes at 0°C, at atmospheric pressure, its volume increases by about 9%. If the melting point is lowered by increased pressure, the increase in volume on freezing is even greater (e.g. 13% at -20°C).

8* High density that increases on heating (up to 3.984°C); the density anomaly The high density of liquid water is due mainly to the cohesive nature of the hydrogen-bonded network.

9* The number of nearest neighbors increases on melting Each water molecule in hexagonal ice has four nearest neighbors.

10* Nearest neighbors increase with temperature Each water molecule in hexagonal ice has four nearest neighbors

11* Pressure reduces its melting point (13.35 MPa gives a melting point of -1°C) Increasing pressure normally promotes liquid freezing, shifting the melting point to higher temperatures.

12* Pressure reduces the temperature of maximum density Increasing pressure shifts the water equilibrium towards a more collapsed structure

13* D2O and T2O differ significantly from H2O in their physical properties These heavier forms of water hydrogen. bond more strongly than normal water.

14* Large viscosity increase as the temperature is lowered The water cluster equilibrium shifts towards the more open structure

15* Viscosity decreases with pressure (at temperatures below 33°C) Viscous flow occurs by molecules moving through the voids that exist between them

16* Low compressibility (0.46 GPa-1, c.f. CCl4 0.92 GPa-1, at 20°C) It may be thought that water should have a high compressibility (kT = -[¶V/¶P]T/V) as the large cavities in liquid water allows plenty of scope for the water structure to collapse under pressure without water molecules approaching close enough to repel each other.

17* Compressibility drops as temperature increases (below a minimum at about 46.5°C) In a typical liquid the compressibility decreases as the structure becomes more compact due to lowered temperature

18* Water has a low thermal expansivity (0.00021/°C, c.f. CCl4 0.00124/°C at 20°C) As the temperature increases, the cluster equilibrium shifts towards the more collapsed structure (e.g. CS), which reduces any increase in volume due to the increased kinetic energy of the molecules.

19* Water's thermal expansivity reduces increasingly (becoming negative) at low temperatures Supercooled and cold (< 3.984°C) liquid water contracts on heating

20* Speed of sound increases with temperature (up to a maximum at 73°C) Sound is a longitudinal pressure wave, whereby the energy is propagated as deformations in the media but the molecules then return to their original positions and are not propagated

21* High specific heat capacity (CV and CP, 4.18 J g-1 K-1) c.f. pentane 1.66 J g-1 K-1, at 25°C) As water is heated, the increased movement of water causes the hydrogen bonds to bend and break.

22* Water has over twice the specific heat capacity of ice or steam (c.f. benzene where CP liquid = 1.03 x CP solid) The specific heats of polar molecules do increase considerably on melting but water shows a particularly large increase.

23* Specific heat capacity (CP) has a minimum (36°C) The specific heat capacity has a shallow minimum at about 36°C with a particularly steep negative slope below 273°C

24* NMR spin-lattice relaxation are very small at low temperatures NMR spin-lattice relaxation depends on the degree of structure

25* Solutes have varying effects on properties such as density and viscosity Solutes will interfere with the cluster equilibrium by favoring either open or collapsed structures

26* Solutions are not ideal Ideality depends on the structure of the solvent being unaffected by the solute

27* X-ray diffraction shows an unusually detailed structure This is simply explained by the presence of ordered clustering within the liquid phase.

28* Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -50°C As water is supercooled it converts mainly into its expanded form (e.g. ES ) at ambient pressures, which at low enough temperatures (< -38°C) may result in it forming metastable low-density amorphous ice (LDA; although normally it will form hexagonal ice at this temperature).

29* Liquid water is easily supercooled It may be expected that the directional hydrogen bonding capacity of water would reduce its tendency to supercool as it would encourage the regular structuring in cold liquid.

30* Solid water exists in a wide variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures The ability for water to form extensive networks of hydrogen bonds increases the number of solid phases possible.

31* Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect

32* The refractive index of water has a maximum value at just below 0°C The refractive index of water (l = 589.26 nm) rises from an estimated 1.33026 at -30°C to a maximum value at just below 0°C (1.33434) before falling ever increasingly to 1.31854 at 100°C

33* The solubilities of non-polar gases in water decrease with increasing Non-polar gases are poorly soluble in water.temperature to a minimum and then rise

34* At low temperatures, the self-diffusion of water increases as the density and pressure increase The increase in self-diffusion with density (within the range of about 0.9 g cm-3 up to about 1.1 g cm-3) is in contrast to normal liquids where increasing density decreases self-diffusion as the molecules restrict each other's movements.

35* The thermal conductivity of water rises to a maximum at about 130°C and then falls For most liquids the thermal conductivity (the rate at which energy is transferred down a temperature gradient) falls with increasing temperature but this occurs only above about 130°C in liquid water

36* Proton and hydroxide ion mobilities are anomalously fast in an electric field The ionic mobilities of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions at 362 and 206 (nm s-1)/(V m-1) at 25°C are very high compared with values for other small ions such as lithium (40(nm s-1)/(V m-1)) and fluoride (57(nm s-1)/(V m-1))

37* The heat of fusion of water with temperature exhibits a maximum at -17°C This strange behavior has been determined from the variation in ice and water specific heat capacities (Cp).

38* The dielectric constant is high (78.4 at 25°C) Polar molecules, where the centers of positive and negative charge are separated, possess dipole moment.

http://msowww.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/Public/Pics/2dFzcone_main.gif

why isn't it on all the planets in some reasonable quantity?
Actually, it is on most planets in significant quantities. Your theories are contrary to observations.


Mercury is too close to the Sun and too small. It does not have sufficient gravity to retain water vapour, and the Sun ensures that no liquid or solid water hangs around.
Venus is too hot and close to the Sun. Any previously existing water has evaporated and been disassociated by UV.
Water is on Mars in significant quantities, as indicated earlier.

Gas giants: most water would be not detectable, as it would be deep in the atmosphere, covered by a thick blanket of hydrogen and helium, and diluted by large quantities of methane. The Galileo probe entered Jupiter's upper atmosphere, giving us the best measurements, but still at very high levels.
There is many times more water in Jupiter than there is on and in Earth (based on the levels of vapour detected in the equatorial upper atmosphere by the Galileo probe... a location that is likely to be one of the driest on Jupiter)
Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have some water, but I can't find how much.

The moons and rings of the gas giants contain water in very significant quantities. Many of them are essentialy big balls of rock and ice.

Pluto appears to be made of 10%-30% ice, and Charon appears to be composed largely of ice.

Yes, that's a lovely list of water's properties.
However, you are ignoring the fact of water's existance in large quantities throughout space (direct observation!), ignoring the fact of water being the result of simple chemical reactions (direct observation!) and dogmatically maintaining that all water is the result of biological processes.

Why are you so dogmatic about this?
Do you suggest that the observations described are false?
What observations do you have that suggest that your "all water comes from life" dogma is true?
Why don't you allow observations to guide your theory?

>> Do you suggest that the observations described are false?

Well I would not put it that way.... but quantity is what we need.

Comets are not made of water... if they were then that probe that sampled the comet tail... would have shown water... and we would all know about it... Major crowing...

It is OK Pete... I am leaning towards my biochemistry and the results of observations re cosmic bodies so far.....

It is just my carefully considered opinion.....
:)

quantity is what we need.
Quantity is what we've got! There is much more water on Jupiter than on Earth!
Many moons of the gas giants are predominately water!
There's bazillions of tonnes of water drifting free in space!
How much more quantity do you want?!?

Comets are not made of water... if they were then that probe that sampled the comet tail... would have shown water... and we would all know about it... Major crowing...
I wouldn't expect "major crowing" about water in comets - everyone knows about it already (except you, it seems), and have done for decades.

Do you remember the Giotto probe that flew past comet Halley nearly 20 years ago?
Measurements by Giotto's mass spectrometer indicated a composition for Halley of 45% water ice, 28% stony minerals, and 27% organic material.
(http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/HalleysC.html)

OK Thanks Pete.... lets us leave it....

We can all await confirmation analysis.... time will sort it out, IMO.

:) :)

It seems to me that the evidence has already sorted it.

You don't deny that water is produced by simple chemical reactions.
You don't deny that Mars' icecaps contain a lot of water.
You don't deny that the is a lot of water in other bodies in the Solar System (particularly Jupiter and the moons of the outer planets)
You don't deny that there is much water drifting in interstellar space.

You haven't given any reasons for maintaining that water is a product of life, beyond a vague "trust me, I'm a biochemist".

And yet you still appear to be reluctant to consider that perhaps the idea might be false? Talk about dogmatic!

>> And yet you still appear to be reluctant to consider that perhaps the idea might be false? Talk about dogmatic!

I don't deny 1

The rest you will find have be ill conceived.

There is no definite proof that water even is on Mars... but I expect there will be some left.

However as an example.

Io a moon of Jupiter, was thought to be water ice. Latest observations by NASA has shown no water is there.
Hydrogen peroxide only.

The mechanisms just are not there to produce water naturally.

It is like finding a hunk of natural Aluminium, or Lithium or Sodium or Tin, or........

You would know some other logic was being applied.

Beyond that you believe... that is fine by me, but let me also believe
You are being dogmativ.

:)

...........and what is hydrogen peroxide, but natural oxygen molecules with natural hydrogen molecules.

This would be totally stable in space, natural hydrogen and natural oxygen plasmaised in equilibrium with solid hydrogen peroxide.

An atom of oxygen linked to a molecule of hydrogen would be converted into stable hydrogen peroxide, molecular water just would not form and be stable for any length of time, but no doubt there would be an equilibrium pressure for this possible mixture, but not much in a natural state.

Thus the water is manufactured from living organisms, which together make up LIFE.

:cool: Hi Zarkov,

On the subject of water elsewhere in space, here's an interesting piece of speculation.

I don't deny 1

The rest you will find have be ill conceived.

You appear to be denying observations that don't agree with your dogma.
I've shown you a number of references that describe the water in the martian icecaps and atmosphere, and well as other bodies in the solar system (in particular from the probe that entered the Jovian atmosphere).
Perhaps you would like to show me some references that show why those observations are "ill-conceived".

However as an example.

Io a moon of Jupiter, was thought to be water ice. Latest observations by NASA has shown no water is there.

Perhaps you mean Europa?
I haven't heard of those observations. Where can I find them?

The whole surface of Europa is water ice and dry ice as well as a few other compounds. The cracking of the surface suggests a liquid underlayer.

...........and what is hydrogen peroxide, but natural oxygen molecules with natural hydrogen molecules.
Just like water, hey?

This would be totally stable in space, natural hydrogen and natural oxygen plasmaised in equilibrium with solid hydrogen peroxide.

Oh dear!
First, H2O2 is much less stable than H2O. H2O2 readily decomposes to H2O and O2. H2O2 is very reactive, being a powerful oxidizer.
Second, why do you imply that H2 and O2 are more natural than H2O? Particularly when H2O is more stable than the combination of H2 and O2?
Third, what pressure of H2 and O2 do you think is at the surface of Europa? What pressure do you think is required for equilibrium with H2O2?
Fourth, the previous point is irrelevant because no such equilibtium is possible! Any combination of H2O2, hydrogen, and oxygen will trend toward H2O and O2.

If you have doubts about the relative stability of H2O2 and H2O, I suggest you get a beaker of both, then wait. See the one that's spontaneously bubbling O2? It's not the water. You could try blanketing the H2O with H2 if you think you can get equilibrium that way, but make sure you have a fire extinguisher ready.


You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you.
You are reduced to ignoring simple observations and making up facts to suit your dogmatic conceptions.

Finally, you might like to recheck that data from NASA about Europa.
Spatially resolved infrared and ultraviolet wavelength spectra of Europa's leading, anti-jovian quadrant observed from the Galileo spacecraft show absorption features resulting from hydrogen peroxide. Comparisons with laboratory measurements indicate surface hydrogen peroxide concentrations of about 0.13 percent, by number, relative to water ice.
(http://lasp.colorado.edu/icymoons/europaclass/Carlson_H2O2_Science.pdf PDF file)

Ok I was wrong, the article I read recently was referring to Europa

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994664

>> Life could be tough on acid Europa

09:45 15 February 04

Far from being a haven of ice and water and an ideal spot for the search for alien life, Jupiter's moon Europa may be a corrosive hotbed of acid and peroxide. That is the conclusion of researchers who met last week to prepare for NASA's proposed Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, an ambitious mission to study Jupiter's moons.

Almost all the information we have about Europa comes from the spacecraft Galileo, which completed its mission to study Jupiter and its moons close up before NASA dramatically crashed it into Jupiter in 2003.

Although the general perception of Europa is of a frozen crust of water ice harbouring a salty subterranean ocean kilometres below, researchers studying the most recent measurements say light reflected from the moon's icy surface bears the spectral fingerprints of hydrogen peroxide and strong acids, perhaps close to pH 0, if liquid.

But they are not sure whether this is just a thin surface dusting or whether the chemicals come from the ocean below. The hydrogen peroxide certainly seems to be confined to the surface, as it is formed when charged particles trapped in Jupiter's magnetosphere strike water molecules on Europa.

But parts of the surface are rich in water ice containing what looks like an acidic compound. Robert Carlson of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, thinks this is sulphuric acid. >>.


You fail to see that the story of natural water formation is a long way from being published... Information is unfolding at a great rate.

When DEFINITE evidence for the existence of unbound water, as per the oceans of this world that is before us... who will complain, certainly not I.

In between times, you have failed to show any real evidence, what you have presented is assertions based on remote viewing....

That sort of water is not much use for a shower, or to even make beer,

LOL

Let us examine this exerp................

>> The hydrogen peroxide certainly seems to be confined to the surface, as it is formed when charged particles trapped in Jupiter's magnetosphere strike water molecules on Europa.

Water over eons is removed and turned into hydrogen peroxide.... this really is the stable formation of hydrogen and oxygen in space and on cosmic bodies in general.

Pete, you seem to find it hard to revisit the Earth without LIFE on it.... I suggest you study the situation on Venus.

Hydrogen peroxide has been detected on Mars.... H2O2 is not conducive to LIFE, as far as I know.... but maybe there is some "LIFE slime seed bug" that can metabolise it.

The search for LIFE's seeds goes on.

Water over eons is removed and turned into hydrogen peroxide....
How?

this really is the stable formation of hydrogen and oxygen in space and on cosmic bodies in general.
Why? Pete already showed h2o2 is not particulary stable, and proposed an experiment to proof his point. You can also check it at the compound library (http://antoine.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/senese/searchcompound.cgi?query=h2o2&chime=on&graphics=on).

When DEFINITE evidence for the existence of unbound water, as per the oceans of this world that is before us... who will complain, certainly not I.

That sort of water is not much use for a shower, or to even make beer,

Ah, so you're changing your assertion?

I'm glad you now agree that there is plenty of water on Europa.
I'm interested in why you think contamination with other compounds means it somehow doesn't count as real water.

What is your assertion, exactly? That all uncontaminated water comes from life, but that there's lots of contaminated water produced by non-life?

>> Ah, so you're changing your assertion?

Wouldn't have thought so... after all we were talking about water suitable for life. I was not including water of crystallisation or water in H2O-SO3 etc
or even H2O-O

>> I'm glad you now agree that there is plenty of water on Europa.

No your are puting words in my mouth.... Of course there is no water on Europa suitable for LIFE.

>> I'm interested in why you think contamination with other compounds means it somehow doesn't count as real water.

Compounded water is not free water, is compounded hydrogen and oxygen, free hydrogen or oxygen???? What about hydrated carbon chains (carbohydrates) is this water and carbon mixed together.

No H2O2 is basically hydrogen mixed with oxygen, it is the only long term stable chemical arrangement under cosmic conditions for hydrogen and oxygen binding,

H2 + O2 <-------> H2O2

:)

>> Ah, so you're changing your assertion?

Wouldn't have thought so... after all we were talking about water suitable for life. I was not including water of crystallisation or water in H2O-SO3 etc
or even H2O-O
>> Ah, so you're changing your assertion?

Wouldn't have thought so... after all we were talking about water suitable for life. I was not including water of crystallisation or water in H2O-SO3 etc
or even H2O-O
Actually, we were talking about "all water in the universe".
Your words:
Water is an unusual "artificial" compound, it is made by LIFE and IMO all water found in the Universe has come from a biological process.
If you're now limiting your assertion to "water suitable for life" (whatever that means), then you're changing your assertion.

Secondly, are you suggesting that every water molecule on Europa is bound in another molecule? If so, perhaps you should check the data again.
Remember, if an observation doesn't fit with your theory, it's bad form to pretend it's wrong without good reason.

Thirdly, a highly acid environment is not necessarily sterile. Life can and does exist in similar environments on earth; black smokers are the classic example. Indeed, the existence of sulfuric acid could be a promising sign for life.

You might be interested in the Science article discussing the detection of sulfuric acid on Europa by the Galileo probe.
Allow me to quote from the article:
Europa's surface consists mainly of H2O ice and hydrated materials, with minor amounts of SO2, CO2, and H2O2.
(Carlson, R, Science 10/01/99, Vol. 286 Issue 5437, p97)
Reading the article further, it is evident that sulfuric acid hydrates is a major component of the surface, as well as water ice, and that the acid appears to be only a surface feature.

>> I'm glad you now agree that there is plenty of water on Europa.

No your are puting words in my mouth.... Of course there is no water on Europa suitable for LIFE.
Do you agree that the evidence indicates that the surface ice on Europa contains around 0.13% hydrogen peroxide?
Do you agree that the evidence indicates the presence of large amounts of water on Europa's surface in addition to sulfuric acid and other hydrates?
Do you agree that the evidence indicates the presence of large amounts of water on and in Europa?
Where do you think the water might have come from? The most common explanation is that it came from simple chemical reactions.
Do you maintain that all the water on and in Europa came from biological processes?

>> I'm interested in why you think contamination with other compounds means it somehow doesn't count as real water.

Compounded water is not free water, is compounded hydrogen and oxygen, free hydrogen or oxygen???? What about hydrated carbon chains (carbohydrates) is this water and carbon mixed together.
Not compounded water. Exactly how concentrated do you think that sulfuric acid is?

No H2O2 is basically hydrogen mixed with oxygen,
Just like water :D
it is the only long term stable chemical arrangement under cosmic conditions for hydrogen and oxygen binding,
Do you base that statement on evidence, or is it dogma?

Simple observations indicate that H2O is much more stable than H2O2.

H2 + O2 <-------> H2O2
Dogma again, completely contrary to evidence.

2H₂ + O₂ <------> 2H₂O

Production of Hydrogen Peroxide is quite complex: http://www.cheresources.com/h2o2.shtml

Production of water, on the other hand, is the simple combination of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and an ignition source.

You still have several issues to address:

You suggest that Europa's hydrogen peroxide was produced from water over eons. Where did the original water come from?

Where did the abundant water in Mars' polar icecaps come from?
Where did the tremendous amount of water detected in Jupiter come from?
Where did the tremendous amount of water detected in interstellar clouds come from?
Where did the water detected in comets come from?

I have presented evidence for each of these, which you haven't acknowledged except for a handwaving denial, which looks suspiciously like ignoring evidence you don't like.

If you want to maintain that "All water comes from LIFE" as a dogmatic stance, that's fine. But, if you want to be seen as an impartial follower of evidence, not bound to any pet theory, you might want to consider acknowledging the possibility that maybe water is a natural part of the universe.

Are you happy for people to consider you a dogmatist?

I don't agree with this "all water comes from life" idea: the opposite seems more likely! But - if the panspermia hypothesis is correct - there may be some kind of primitive biology throughout the Galaxy, even inside comets in deep space. So biogenic water may be much more common than generally believed.

IC

Well evidence to me is bound up in more than just inference..... all the extraterrestial water so far has been by inference, without, IMO, a backing theory, other than I hope it is so because I think it is so.

Until the first confirmed /substantuiated case of extraterrestial water is on record. I remain open, however my considered opinion stands.

As far as native H2O and manufactured H2O, I think you will find that all water ultimately comes from the activities of living systems. or in your terms 99.99%

>> So biogenic water may be much more common than generally believed.

Most likely this is true for in short term in some special (life present ) situations.... remembering pollution.... however given a short cosmological time span the water would be neutralised into H2O2 by cosmic radiation.

Since you are debating the status of water on Mars, perhaps I could reproduce my recent essay on Martian water?
If you want to read my main reference it is Catling 2004 (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/papers_mine/Catling-2004-MarsAtmos.pdf)

Mars formed from the material in the solar nebula and reached its present size by 4.6 billion years ago (gigayears ago; Gya) ; the amount of water on the early planet is unknown, but there are two main options; either Mars had a similar amount of primeval water to the Earth, or it may have had somewhat less; much of the early water in this region had become bound into bodies known as planetary embryos, and if Mars encountered fewer of these objects it may have started out with significantly less water.

The evidence from Spirit and Opportunity seems to indicate that water was relatively plentiful in the early period, so we now have to consider where this water has gone.
The first age of Martian history, from 4.6 Gya to 3.8 Gya has been labelled the Noachian period; the atmosphere, mostly CO2 and nitrogen was perhaps six times as thick as that on Earth today. Liquid water was possible in these conditions, despite the fact that the early Sun was as much as 30% less bright. So there may have been seas, and there are many water-associated features in Noachian period terrain. The core of Mars was still hot enough for a magnetic field at that time, so the effects of solar wind and hard UV on the atmosphere were lessened.

However there were many impacts during the Noachian; 200+ craters larger than 5km per million km^2; this was one reason for atmosphere (and water) loss- impact erosion.
Because of Mars’ lower gravity, the effect of large impacts was to expel volatiles into outer space; the fraction that exceeded escape velocity never returned. (This will have to be accounted for in any terraforming project which involves volatiles crash-landing on Mars- if the impacts are too energetic, the volatiles will escape to a greater or lesser extent).

A second mechanism for Martian atmosphere loss was hydrodynamic escape; the early planet still contained a lot of the primeval hydrogen from the solar nebula; this will have been expelled by volcanic outgassing as it rose through the semimolten interior; a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere would make it less dense, so the whole atmosphere would swell, and gases of all kinds would be driven off at the top of the swollen atmosphere; another way of looking at it is that hydrogen quickly boils off, but drags some of the other atmospheric components with it.

By the end of the Noachian, when impacts became less frequent and the magnetic field disappeared as the core cooled down, the atmosphere was down from 6 atmospheres to 0.06 atmospheres; liquid water would no longer have been possible.
Now the magnetic field had gone, the solar wind could rip away at the top of the atmosphere; this very variable effect is sometimes known as sputtering.
Additionally the hard UV from the early Sun (although the sun was less bright, it was smaller and hotter- so more UV) could strip water in the atmosphere into oxygen and hydrogen by photolysis; the hydrogen would escape, dragging other gases with it; the oxygen would combine readily with the rocks of Mars, forming sulphates, haematite, perhaps carbonates.

By these processes, impact erosion, hydrodynamic loss, sputtering and photolysis, the atmosphere of Mars eventually reached its current level of 0.006 x Earth’s. However the water loss will have been drastically reduced once the atmosphere was no longer thick enough to produce a greenhouse effect; when it got too cold the water will have turned to ice, which is much less volatile. In fact is is quite possible that much of Mars’ water is still there; as ice it would be incorporated into the rock as part of the solid matrix, or far underground as liquid water; the surface is freeze dried, and evidently very salty, though chorine seems to be scarce- the salts are mostly sulphates… but the loss of water to surface sinks seems to have been a major mechanism of water loss from the surface. One estimate says that half of the water left at the end of the Noachian is still there.

In other words, much of the water may still be there, buried deeply. During the later Martian periods, the Hesperian and Amazonian, it seems that combinations of orbital cycles and axial tilt have periodically brought liquid water to the surface; it may be possible to achieve this by artificial means, particularly using positive feedback mechanisms, and bring Martian water to the surface again.

__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

Good effort eburacum45, you have been busy, Thanks for that.
:)

Hydrogen peroxide would only exist in the cosmos as solid or a supercooled gas or in the plasma state. The state we observe H2O2 in the lab, would not be naturally seen.

It's more probable that any water that still may exist on Mars may not be easily found nor extracted with the possible exception of the martian polar caps.......So if you're getting excited over the possibility of water on Mars, then I would suggest that you cancel your next martian summer vacation plans, take off your swimming suit and sun glasses and put them aside for a while longer until they find an actual pool of liquid or frozen water and confirm that it can exist on the surface of Mars in a true physical state, such as a small pond, lake, stream, river or inland sea....All of which is very doubtful at this point in time......

Atta Boy

>> All of which is very doubtful at this point in time......

Yep, the evidence is in the temperature difference between the max and min.... over 100oC.... definately no water vapour in that atmosphere.

>>definately no water vapour in that atmosphere.

Dogma or observation? The detection of the spectral signature of water vapour in the Marian atmosphere is better evidence than getting your hands wet.

Zarkov, why are you happy to accept inferential evidence of H2O2 and sulfur hydrates on Europa, but quick to discount inferential evidence of water? (Not that inferential evidence is any less valid. All evidence is inferential to a greater or lesser degree[/i])

Could it be that your theory is driving the observations you accept, rather than the other way round?

>> Could it be that your theory is driving the observations you accept, rather than the other way round?

I have no vested interest in water, I have argued my perspective from a scientific point of view. If can not see my side of the discussion, then maybe you do not have my background,,,, however I am very familiar with your establishment perspective.

WE differ !!!

We certainly do.

I don't care where water is or where it comes from, but I acknowledge that the evidence to date indicates that it is basically everywhere, and that it is formed by simple chemical reactions.

On the other hand, you appear to care very much that "all water found in the Universe has come from a biological process", regardless of evidence, because that's what your dogma says.

Your "scientific point of view" is laughable - it is hard to believe that you've ever even been in a chemistry lab.

>> Your "scientific point of view" is laughable - it is hard to believe that you've ever even been in a chemistry lab.


At that, it shows you have run out of puff and credibility.

Seeya in another thread some time. goodbye

At that, it shows you have run out of puff and credibility.
I'm sorry Zarkov, but as long as you continue to ignore the obvious problems with your theory, I'm afraid not that many people are going to take you very seriously.

He's all huff and no guff. Even after all the evidence to counter his theory.

"The worst deluded are the self-deluded." - Christian Nestell Bovee

>> I'm sorry Zarkov, but as long as you continue to ignore the obvious problems with your theory, I'm afraid not that many people are going to take you very seriously.

You guys are really something else you know.... I know who is dogmatic and therefore who really has little understanding. Summary dismissal never adds to a discussion.


>> "The worst deluded are the self-deluded." - Christian Nestell Bovee

No, the worst deluded are those that are only defending their ego.
The worst deluded as history has repeatedly show, have been the established big ego-heads in science... they have the most to lose, LOL,,,, there are plenty of these people in the world.

But very few real thinkers ever seem to appear.....they always get screwed by the ego-powerful.... but LOL the true thinkers always win, because truth has nothing to do with people's egos, so I will not continue here, with this childish egotistical banter being posted by people who can not cope with reality.

When you find definitive evidence for space 'water', give me a call.... in between times, you all may have learnt that the chemistry of the cosmos is NOT the same as the chemistry we play with here on Earth.


As I said before... seeya round////

you all may have learnt that the chemistry of the cosmos is NOT the same as the chemistry we play with here on Earth.

Why not?

No, the worst deluded are those that are only defending their ego.

Like you continuously trying to prove your 'theories' here regardless of how many times people have presented you with information that strikes them down...like your spin gravity. You can't provide examples in mathematics of things that general relativity explains with ease becaues "none of it is your field" or as everyone else on this board calls it "dodging the facts". A lot of people have asked you for examples...just read your past forums....you don't provide anything other than criticism for them following the scientific method (which as done a damn good job of getting us where we are today).

But very few real thinkers ever seem to appear.....they always get screwed by the ego-powerful

99% of the time their dead wrong.

As I said before... seeya round.

And don't ever come back! Science doesn't need egotistic garbage like you.

Well I have attracted the in-group of big-ego heads.... heehhhee you guys wouldn't know a fact is you tripped over it..

So now I am aware of the select few... any more I should know about... every forum has this scum.

Look in the mirror guys.....

Just keep deluding yourself that you are right. But you've shown an ignorance to modern scientific concepts and instead replaced it with made up pseudoscience that isn't any better at explaining a given phenomenon. You're not a scientist, you're like a sorcerer; trying to exploit what isn't there.

I think I might perhaps play devil's advocate here;
Liquid water per se may be relatively unusual on planets which do not bear life;
there is lots of ice in our solar system, but there is not much liquid water.

Wherever astronomers detect liquid water in the universe, I would submit that there is a good chance that life will also exist; this may not be the case, but it would be encouraging to think that there was such a correlation.

Sure it's encouraging to think that way. But water doesn't necessarily mean life. And of course all water isn't made from life as Zarkov believes.

Until the first confirmed/substantiated case of extraterrestial water is on record. I remain open, however my considered opinion stands.

Just as a hypothetical question... if the Huygens probe (landing on Titan in January) finds a predominantly water-ice surface and successfuly reports that back to Earth, will your considered opinion change?

>> if the Huygens probe (landing on Titan in January) finds a predominantly water-ice surface and successfuly reports that back to Earth, will your considered opinion change?

Of course... the cosmic chemistry would certainly then be open to free native water existing outside of living systems..

But until then, the odds are stacked against this happening, IMO.

It seems the only psychological nut cases are those that offer irrevelant derogratory comments instead of considered discussion.... This forum 'experience' is certainly positive proof for the mental metalised
p o i s o n e d state of the general population.

All I can say is thank goodness the belligerent posters are there, as Douglas Adams would say, outside in the lunatic asylum and I am here inside my lab......I am sure no one can be saved from the fate that the collective are manifesting.

Oh well, the Earth will be cleansed.

At the sort of temperatures prevalent on Titan, water ice would probably be as hard as steel - and buried under billions of years of hydrocarbon precipitates from the atmosphere.

We never know, though - there might be water "volcanism" on Titan driven by tidal heating, like geysers directly from the mantle. A similar process has been suggested as creating the smooth terrain on neighbouring Enceladus.

>> At the sort of temperatures prevalent on Titan, water ice would probably be as hard as steel -

Hydrogen peroxide would be well frozen as well

Thanks for your sensible post Starthane Xyzth
:)

I thought this post is about water. It may be hard as steel but the water is there.

As life on mars goes I can see it. Look at life here on antarctica. It needs little water and survives low tempatures. Bacteria and such here can go dorminant when temputure go outside of its range and then can wake up to continue its life when temp returns to a safer zone.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/antarctica.htm

One sugestion of why a lake is under Antarctica was the pressure of the ice above heated it up. Perhaps a similiar lake exists on Titan.

Interesting posts Zarkov, it's good that you stated logical and observational reasons for your "theory." That shows you have thought out your idea, rather then jumping to a conclusion. If there is water on mars, there will more then likely be some type of life, which in turn walks the path of your theory. Now if there's water and no life present...now that would be another story ;).

>> Now if there's water and no life present...now that would be another story .

Good call Blandnuts..... yep it all hangs in the balance... exciting isn't it.

WATER :- Water is an unusual "artificial" compound, it is made by LIFE and IMO all water found in the Universe has come from a biological process. Together with oxygen on this planet, which has been released in an elemental form by LIFE, these two substances are the vital fluids that complete the body of whole super-organism, LIFE.



I fail to see how one can defend the notion that H2O did not exist in the universe before there was life present somewhere to make it. Especially considering that liquid H2O was almost certainly necessary for life to originate.

I fail to see how one can defend the notion that H2O did not exist in the universe before there was life present somewhere to make it.

It seems that where there's a will, there's a way!
Convincing the defending party that their defence is unsound appears to be impossible.

>> liquid H2O was almost certainly necessary for life to originate.

Why??? are you talking life as you know it, or are you talking about cosmic life?

There are many forms of water, it does not have to be in free liquid state.

eg H
-C- C -
OH
hydrated carbon...... Cosmic chemistry is different to terrestrial chemistry

>> liquid H2O was almost certainly necessary for life to originate.

Why??? are you talking life as you know it, or are you talking about cosmic life?

There are many forms of water, it does not have to be in free liquid state.

eg H
-C- C -
OH
hydrated carbon...... Cosmic chemistry is different to terrestrial chemistrywhat are you talking about??

cosmic life???!!! there's no such thing!

liquid water was almost certainly necessary for life to originate!

you said there was no such compund as water until life, i say you're full of crap. of course water existed before life. next you'll be saying there was no methane before life, no NH4 before life etc.

do you belong to the Flat-Earth society?


there's no way you're a biochemist/microbiologist with 40 years of experience.

you're full of crap.

Deaf ears, paulsamuel.

Insults only give him an excuse to act the martyr.