Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Robittybob1, Nov 11, 2011.
Mercury is too hot.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The point being that there are far more plausible theories on the subject, ones that don't require a huge suspension of disbelief.
Not only a gullible crank, but an illiterate one at that.
I think you mean breed.
And if it's capable of creating the Earth what makes you think it needs to breed to have offspring?
Why not just put this question to bed by establishing two lists:
(1) the list of known, or generally accepted, criteria for abiogenesis
(2) the list of known, or generally accepted, environmental parameters for the planet Mercury.
This way, you can avoid the musical chairs.
Well theoretically groups of extreme thermophiles could live on Mercury(though they'd never be able to visit without powerful protective equipment), but the conditions on Mercury would prevent such life from developing to begin with.
I seem to remember reading that at the bottom of impact craters there may still be water, and ice in the polar regions (so there could be transition regions with life?).
Would you like to start the list off.
What NASA says in this article
is that first they are looking for ingredients of life and if they find any, then they will 'know what to send next'. IOW they will look for signs of life, presumably no longer alive.
If it doesn't breed it just as well might eat bread.
How hot was it during the proto-sun period? It is during this period planets are formed and life begins.
Mercury has oxygen , water and methane, even now, so early on it could have had them in abundance.
"Any ancient life on Mercury would have faced many extinction events. Here on Earth many past life forms have been destroyed by asteroid impacts. The dinosaurs are a classic example. Images of Mercury’s surface returned by the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft have shown that the surface has suffered many large impacts. In fact, it was heavily bombarded during the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. Any one of those impacts could have destroyed any life on the planet. Many scientists believe that a great deal of the planet’s surface was stripped away by one impact. If the impact removed a large portion of the surface, surely it would have taken any life that existed at the time with it."
A transfer of of living cells/spores could have happened 3.9 billion years ago. Doesn't that time coincide fairly well with life first being noticed on Earth?
They should send a space probe back to Mercury and land it on the ice in a crater and analyse the sample for life (organic molecules?).
If they found DNA or RNA or Protein I would say that proves life started off on Mercury.
You might think all that would prove is life is capable of existing in very extreme environments and it would prove that life exists on other planets.
Could I disprove that all the planets formed at the same time?
Well the Gas Giant planets formed after the Solar Wind blew the volatile material out there.
You can see the Asteroid Belt was in the process of planet building and was interrupted (I suspect by the solar wind).
And even if the other 4 planets formed at the same time during the proto-sun period you would have to agree the radiant pressure on the material nearest Mercury would be the highest compared to the rest, so Mercury warmed up earlier and had more intense light radiation to start off processes like photosynthesis.
Previously (weeks back now) looking through the Hubble images (Nebulae Section) I did see a star with multiple concentric bands of dust around it about to form multiple tori (planet formation occurring?) but whether it will finish the job we will never know.
Because I have now seen this imagine I can't insist the planets in our solar system definitely formed in a series.
Are there any features of life today that might suggest it was of extra-terrestrial origin?
Do you think there is any reason only 4 nucleic acid bases are used?
I looking for some feature that might suggest life started off on Mercury. Any help most welcome.
That is copied from http://www.universetoday.com/22097/life-on-mercury/
It's a good idea to give the source when you quote something.
Thanks - I had lost where it come from as at that time i couldn't post links.
During the proto-sun period there was a massive amount of water and other volatiles on Mercury. That Wikipedia far underestimates the original size of the planet.
Living bacteria type cells will survive freeze dried in space and otherwise transported in comets or meteorites.
It explains where molecules to first cell evolution (abiogenesis) occurred.
Based on my calculations from the mass of material in the nebula disc. The rings of rubble as you say then forming planetesimals then coalescing into a planet.
But that whole reaction was held together by a massive amount of volatile gasses then liquids and crystals as the pressure rose. Earth was by my calculations 28 times its current mass. i.e. 27 times its current mass was volatiles. All this blew off when the Sun fired up for earnest.
There is more evolution to develop the first living cell that to go from a bacterium to a man. You seem to think it is easy but it isn't and it required a special place like Mercury.
The Earth was just a block of frozen liquids (a lot like Jupiter's moon is today) no life here sorry. (I might change my view on this with time ????)
We have been discussing the abiogenesis debate for months now on the Wooden Boat Forum / Bilge / "Are we alone in the Universe."
Those calculations were done in around 1998 -1999 I did them most definitely.
I was saying to my friends on WBF that I must try and find where those notes went for I was going to scan them in as a photo. I'm not sure where they are just at the moment but I'm sure they weren't lost.
What I am saying here is that the Early Earth had 28 times it's current mass. Can you think of something that might happen if the Earth had that or more mass? Have you heard of compression of solids? Would the terrestrial part of the Earth be compressed with that sort of mass on it?
You're forgetting about all the collisions and catastrophic violence during that time. Life didn't begin until that stabilized.
If the protosun extended to the orbit of Mars, there was no Mercury during the protosun stage.
This is describing is the way the proto-sun condensed. It once was just a nebula of enormous proportions,
"Within 400,000 years the globule had condensed to a millionth of its original size, but still over four times the size of the present solar system."
You have to remember the proto-sun is contracting all the time.
So during the whole proto-sun stage there are a whole series of changes, so from now on I need to say "in the late proto-sun period".
As the proto-sun is contracting it is drawing the proto-planetary disc in along with it.
The planets only begin to form after the contracting proto-sun has separated from the protoplanetary disc. This I believe is due to the balance between the forces of gravitational attraction against radiant pressure and conservation of angular momentum of the disc.
True but if you read above how I propose planets formed there is a big difference between the standard theory and my method.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It quite clearly said that the protosun, the core, filled the orbit of mars and had a temperature of 56,000 K. Since this would put any rocky planet within the core, it's quite obvious that the protosun phase is not when the early planets formed.
Separate names with a comma.