Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

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

So it is a guiding principle not an irrefutable principle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

I know which bet I'm going to take.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Hope that helped!

 

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

 

@Rob --

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

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

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

 

I was thinking about Ockham’s Razor earlier, and really it protects against the unnecessarily complicated, like if I was to propose life went from Mercury to Venus then to Mars and then finally to Earth. Then you would be justified to use Ockham's Razor against that.
Nuf said on that topic.

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

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

Thanks for the discussion in any case.

 

@Rob --

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

Well the abiogenesis thing is answerable right away in that the timelines don't match up. The protosun time period began almost four point five billion years ago, about four hundred thousand years after the formation of the planetary disc. As near as we can tell the first replicators appeard about four billion years ago, about half a billion years later. Unless you're saying that the protosun period lasted for half a billion years and that the inner planets were able to form and had the elements necessary for life(including water, which is something that the data says didn't happen as the during that time this area was to hot for molecules like water and methane to condense) you've got some serious issues with your idea.

 

You might be defining your terms differently than I do. I think of the protoplanetary disc appearing after the proto-sun has separated from it. So they are forming together till the separation.
What is your "data" source? For the heat was not a problem during the protosun period, it was never "too hot for molecules like water and methane to condense" on any of the inner, now terrestrial planets.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

@Rob --

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

Good luck, you're going to need it.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Rob --

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

 

I'll send you my email address if you like. Sure, thanks, please do that for there are some very difficult questions when you get into the physics of compressing a planet, so any help is most welcome.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!