Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

No evidence?1. The appearance of comparatively complex lifeforms on the Earth almost as soon as the Late Heavy Bombardment period had ended.
2. Modelling supporting the easy transfer of lifeforms from Mars to Earth.
3. The presence of scores of organic molecules in GMCs, accompanied by abundant substrates for chemical reaction.


Not a respected hypothesis?
Francis Crick found it respectable enough. (But then we know Nobel laureates get weird when they get older. Right?)


Here are some typical papers on the topic from hundreds that are available:

Survival of bacteria exposed to extreme acceleration:
implications for panspermia

Maximum Number of Habitable Planets at the Time of Earth's Origin: New Hints for Panspermia?

The enigma of the origin of life and its timing


And here is the abstract of a review article:
"Panspermia is the idea that life migrates naturally through space. Although an old idea, there has been much recent theoretical and experimental work developing the idea in recent years. In this review, this progress is considered and placed in context. Ideas concerning Panspermia now include mathematical treatments of the likelihood of transfer of life from Mars to Earth, the possibility of life transferring between the natural satellites of an outer planet such as Jupiter, and mathematical treatments and models of life migrating out of a Solar System. Not all predictions of the likelihood of successful Panspermia are positive, and some are contradictory. At present, Panspermia can neither be proved nor disproved. Nevertheless, Panspermia is an intellectual idea which holds strong attraction. However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin."
Source: Burchell, M.J. Panspermia Today International Journal of Astrobiology (2004), 3 : pp 73-80

In short, there is both evidence and support for the concept. Perhaps you have confused an interest in a subject - the origin of life - with substantive knowledge about it.


@Robbitybob1,your wild speculation fails on several levels, only two of which I address here.

The physical make up of Mercury, large core, small mantle, is currently best explained by a massive impact that stripped a large part of the mantle from the planet. Subsequently Mercury was subjected to extensive bombardment that may have continued after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment period. These conditions would not have been suitable for the development of life, even if volatiles were present on the planet.

You have offered no evidence in support of your contention that the Earth was 27 times larger. Evidence for the temperatures present in the proto-planetary disk at various stages in its evolution are against the presence of volatiles in the proportion you propose for the primitive Earth. You have to demonstrate why this evidence is incorrect and I doubt you are able to do this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously I have not yet had time to read those articles you have referred to but I’ll throw in a couple of quick comments now and a fuller reply later.
I liked this bit in you extract However, at the heart of Panspermia is a still un-resolved mystery: in order to migrate, life has to start somewhere, and we still cannot tackle that moment of origin. For as you know it is that very question I am hoping to answer.

As for your two rebuttals I have this to say:
1.

In my hypothesis planet formation and abiogenesis occurs in the mid to late proto-sun period (which is much earlier than the Late Heavy Bombardment period) . I imagine a lot of the material involved in the Late Heavy Bombardment period was volatile material blown off the inner planets at the time of the Sun becoming a “t Tauri” star.
So my timing is so much earlier than the period you have said was unsuitable.

As far as this calculation goes I would be willing to go through it again on the forum for it was a relatively simple calculation. It starts from an estimate of the density and form of the proto-planetary disc. I used figures I found on the Internet in 1998-99.
Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure. If you are thinking the Sun is shining on the proto-planetary disc and/or the terrestrial planets as they are forming we are working in totally different time periods.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are there any Earth Scientists on Sciforums? Ophiolite has been the only one so far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Q1. Does the Solar wind have the power to strip anything bare beyond Mercury's orbit?
Q2. Is it true the gas in the solar system never even had a chance to settle before it was blown to the outer solar system? Did it had anything to do with the life cycle of the sun?
Q3. Is it true the sun was practically as it is today when the planets were forming?


Answer 1. The Solar Wind is stripping the Earth's atmosphere every day. Also look, where has the atmosphere from Mars gone?


Answer 2. That would only happen if the planets formed when the Sun was thermonuclear (T Tauri or Main Sequence; I think these are the terms used). Before that the glowing protosun had the gentle radiant pressure needed to drive planet formation.

Answer 3. I don't know where you are getting your rates of formation from. Plenty of places mention the Sun is 10% brighter than earlier periods.

 

@Rob --

How long do you think the proto-sun period lasted?

When did the proto-sun period begin?

When do you estimate abiogenesis occurred?

 

I was thinking about this today too, in that I use these terms without clearly defined periods. The reason for this is I am thinking in terms of sequences first. Figure out the sequence that things had to occur in first rather than worry about how long each part might have been.
I am sure the sequence and the times will marry up OK in the end.

Like for example if you say planet building occurred after the Sun fired up you get a totally different type of planet, one without the volatiles.

But in general I would have to use the generally accepted time scales for the Nebula - Proto-sun - Sun stages.

 

@Rob --

So the fact that abiogenesis didn't occur, in other words that life wasn't present on the planet, until after our sun had become a main sequence star doesn't bother you? You'll just reinterpret the time line until you get the one you want? How is that science?

 

Your question seemed a bit jumbled but I'll give it a go.

Life could be transferred at any stage, protosun or t tauri or main sequence stage. That transfer would be due to a collision type event. No one will be able to tell when that happened.
But the proposal is that abiogenesis occurred on Mercury and spores were subsequently transferred to Earth. Earth could support simple life but the conditions never favoured abiogenesis. The multiplication of life at the beginning may have been rather slow, so it took a long time to show up in the geological records. (The records are good in saying yea or nea to life forms but not when the lifeforms arrived)
As far as reinterpreting the timelines etc, it will be good to have the pieces fitting perfectly, in other words if the theory is right the pieces will fit.

 

Take this passage as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
.....
"T Tauri stars like the young Sun have far stronger stellar winds than more stable, older stars. Uranus and Neptune are believed to have formed after Jupiter and Saturn did, when the strong solar wind had blown away much of the disc material. As a result, the planets accumulated little hydrogen and helium—not more than 1 Earth mass each. Uranus and Neptune are sometimes referred to as failed cores.[31] The main problem with formation theories for these planets is the timescale of their formation. At the current locations it would have taken a hundred million years for their cores to accrete. This means that Uranus and Neptune probably formed closer to the Sun—near or even between Jupiter and Saturn—and later migrated outward (see Planetary migration below).[31][32] Motion in the planetesimal era was not all inward toward the Sun; the Stardust sample return from Comet Wild 2 has suggested that materials from the early formation of the Solar System migrated from the warmer inner Solar System to the region of the Kuiper belt.[33]
After between three and ten million years,[29] the young Sun's solar wind would have cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disc, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets. "

 

From the above clip these things gel with my hypothesis:
"T Tauri stars like the young Sun have far stronger stellar winds"
"Uranus and Neptune are believed to have formed after Jupiter and Saturn did"
"The main problem with formation theories for these planets is the timescale of their formation" The current theories have problems!
"materials from the early formation of the Solar System migrated from the warmer inner Solar System to the region of the Kuiper belt."
"After between three and ten million years,[29] the young Sun's solar wind would have cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disc, blowing it into interstellar space, thus ending the growth of the planets. "

All of these fit within my hypothesis.
"

 

Of course I can dismiss it; it is silly. The fact that you say your idea is a serious proposition indicates that you are not a clever person.

Where are my facts? Science has given an excellent scenario for the formation of the solar system and the planets. You have an alternate idea. It is up to you to present evidence for your conjecture. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence since the entire thing is silly beyond words. Sorry but it is what it is!

 

You are not reading what I have written with an open mind. You are happy with what you have been told and now closed to new ideas. Did you know there is no proof of what you believe? In fact the more exoplanets they find the more they realise they have it wrong. That admission is on the the NASA site and if you need it I will find it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Saying that exoplanets have raised questions that need to be answered does not negate the theory of the solar system formation.

Nothing anywhere gives the slightest indication of the patently silly scenario you proposed. To believe your conjecture it would take more than an open mind, it would take a hollow head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well at least you have a sense of humour and I did laugh a little.
But my head is on the case and there will come the right team with me to look into these proposals.
OK I admit I don't have all the proof, but I can't see that it is impossible in spite of all the wrongs you say.

 

Yes there is life everywhere

It is difficult to "prove" life anywhere else at this time. Without scientific close range observation, or the analysis of an atmosphere showing biological compounds (which does not guarantee life) there is no certainty.
However, on the esoteric level the answer is simple. To digress: String Theory now postulates that the part of the "string" we see is dispersed over 11 dimensions. This is actual science. In the esoteric tradition the Masters say that the purpose of the creation is consciousness (life) and that all bodies created (worlds, suns, galaxies) will have life at many points during their existance. As String theory postulates these other dimensions, then on earth there may be thousands of dimensions functioning simultaneously without awareness of each other. And these forms of life may be of such diffeerent principles that we could not even imagine their composition and functioning. It is truly egocentrical to imagine that carbon based life as we perceive it is the norm.
Therefore, the esoteric answer is that all planets possess life, although they are not visible nor perceptable to us. Mercury could not do our form of carbon and water based life as one side is hot enough to meld lead, the other over 200 below zero, and the atmosphere has been blasted away by the solar wind. So this eliminates one of the thousands of possibilities. But not the others.

 

What a weird answer, but valid in a sense.
But I see you too are looking at Mercury today and seeing what it is like. I agree it is uninhabitable NOW but what was it like in the protosun period? THEN.
THEN NOT NOW. Can that concept sink in?

 

How strange, therefore, that these life forms in "another dimension" require a planet that is manifestly evident in the dimensions that we can perceive.

 

Maybe the same thing happens in the space between them too. Look let's try and keep this to the physical 3 D realm please.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why this entire thread is a steaming pile of horse apples.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem with your argument is they were entirely based on your opinions and not proof that my hypothesis is faulty. You ought to eat some of those horse apples; good brain food.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!