Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

There's no real discussion with a crank.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am willing to discuss everything anytime. You are welcome to join in.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As you might realise I favour the Compressed Earth as an Early Earth stage. How can the early Earth become compressed? So that is why I introduce these advocates for this scenario. Note I don't go along entirely with what they say but the idea of the compressed Earth is based on their scientific data.
From Wikipedia On the subject of Expanding Earth.
"Present day advocates

Australian Geologist James Maxlow has produced a series of twenty-three reconstructions of a smaller Earth suggesting a 99%[20] matching of all the continental boundaries. Italian Geologist Giancarlo Scalera has written several papers[21] in support of evidence for an expanding Earth.

Whole-earth decompression dynamics was proposed in 2005 by J. Marvin Herndon who postulates Earth formation from a Jupiter-sized gas giant by catastrophic loss of its gaseous atmosphere with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins which are filled in by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[22]"

Ok Note: I don't buy any of the other alternative causes. So what I need to do is see why this J Marvin Herndon thought the Earth had this extreme mass?
The link from the wikipedia page takes you to a scientific paper by Herndon.
"Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do some people think life started somewhere else?

Why does the grass look greener on the other side of the fence?

 

The answers are in the thread.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The greener grass is found by reading.
The rest is in your head.

Think about it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The ideas we disagree on are these:
1. You believe that science can be conducted by ignoring large amounts of information and disregarding completely well researched and validated current theories. I don't agree.
2. You believe conditions suitable for the origin of life existed on Mercury early in the solar system's history. I don't agree.

So, you are correct, we disagree on only a couple of things.

What is the nature of this researcht hat you have done? I should like to know.

Unlike you I have done very little research on the planet building process. My research is limited to the following:

1. Studying the relevant chapters of established textbooks on astronomy, such as The Academic Press Encyclopedia of the Solar System; Astronomy and Cosmology by Fred Hoyle; Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics by Zeilik and Gregory; etc.
2. studying related material on planet formation in texts such as Earthlike Planets by Murray et al; The Chemistry of Atmospheres by Richard Wayne; The Geology of Mars by Thomas Mutch; Planetary Vulcanism by Peter Cattermole; Venus II - Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere and Solar Wind Environment by Bougher et al; Planetary Science - A Lunar Perspective by Stuart Ross Taylor; Lunar Stratigraphy and Sedimentology by J.F. Lindsay; etc.
3. Studying relevant geochemistry in textbooks such as Principles of Geochemistry by Brian Mason; Introduction to Geochemistry by Konrad B. Krauskopf; Geochemistry by W.M.white; etc.
4. Studying information on meteoroids and other accretionary remnants in the foregoing items; and in Chondrules and Their Origin by Elbert King; and in more than one hundred and twenty research papers.
4. Studing the character of exoplanet systems in over sixty research papers.
6. Studying the specifics of planetary formation in over one hundred research papers.

This minimal exposure to the current concepts surrounding planetary formation equips me ask some relevant questions about the process. It does not enable me to offer any deep answers. I wait in great anticipation to learn how your extensive research has allowed you to 'crack the planet building process'. I especially look forward to you explaining how the ideas, based upon tens of thousands of hours of research by hundreds of researchers, are 'wrong'. I'm sure once you have laid out their foolish errors for all to see we will be able to laugh along with you.
,

 

@Ophiolite
I'm impressed, but also slightly sorry that you spent so much time writing up that reply to me. In fact as I was reading it, I was thinking I want this person on my team.
Are you saying in all those texts they still don't have doubts about any part of the planet building process?

What I "found" was that planet building is different when it is performed in the protosun period. So did any of those articles mention planet building in the protosun period?

How would a protosun build a planet? Have you thought about that? Read about it? Do they propose torus shaped dust bands and accretion within them?

One of the experiments I did was to put dust into a fluid and swirled it around. It did naturally form bands as it slowed. Bands in the protoplanetary disc, who mentions that?

 

It took very little time to write up and reminded me that I haven't done much reading in the area lately.

Of course there are doubts about planetary formation, but these doubts are steadily being resolved. Before you can challenge current theory I really think you have to understand it and this you clearly do not. I have to disappear now and have no home internet access at present. I'll select a handful of the more useful papers for you to read and provide links to them next week.

You could start by googling for the Nice model and Levinson, or Morbidelli.

 

@Ophiolite
Thanks and i'll be pleased to hear from you next week.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When I read the Nice Model for planet building it makes me feel sick. http://www.analogsf.com/1003/altview_03.shtml
The Bode's Law has lost it's popularity but to me it is an indicator that there is a much simpler system for planet building yet to be discovered, and if I must say so myself I like my method. I wonder what the older planet building models were?

Chaos of the Nice model is so unlikely to end up with the regular pattern of planet arrangement.

 

I'm more along this line of inquiry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...otheses#Reemergence_of_the_nebular_hypothesis
"Reemergence of the nebular hypothesis
In 1978, astronomer A. J. R. Prentice revived the Laplacian nebular model in his Modern Laplacian Theory by suggesting that the angular momentum problem could be resolved by drag created by dust grains in the original disc which slowed down the rotation in the centre.[4][9] Prentice also suggested that the young Sun transferred some angular momentum to the protoplanetary disc and planetesimals through supersonic ejections understood to occur in T Tauri stars.[4][10] However, his contention that such formation would occur in toruses or rings has been questioned, as any such rings would disperse before collapsing into planets.[4]"

I have just thought of a way the protosun could loose its angular momentum and collapse rapidly. I'll have to think it through a bit.

 

But life on Mercury??

Mercury
First planet to be warmed by the protosun.
First planet to be formed.
Had the right materials to begin with.
But unsuitable now, so life had to leave.

 

SPACE
Planetary Mystery: How in the World Did Mercury Form?
By Jeffrey Kluger Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2095623,00.html

Extract: "While all these new findings are thrilling to planetologists, it's the riddle of Mercury's formation that is rightfully getting the most attention. The question, of course, is, If both prevailing theories are fatally flawed, what's the best alternative theory? And the answer — wait for it — is, Who knows?”

Read the article in the link.
My conclusion: For volcanoes to be able to spew out volatiles there has been plate tectonic on Mercury too early on.

Followed by loss of surface volatiles and cooling which have done the reverse of the Expanding Earth. It has brought the plates in contact again and showing signs of compression (like colliding tectonic plates would.)

 

Just out of curiosity, I decided to try to find some numbers.

I decided to use granite for my ballpark numbers.

Granite has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.3. This means, that for every 5 degree change in temperature, granite will shrink or expand by 6 micrometers per 100 millimeters.

Granites melting point is 1250 degrees, so I will consider cooling from 1250 degrees to 0 degrees. That means a shrinkage of 1500 micrometer per 100 millimeters. This is a 1.5 percent shrinkage due to thermal expansion.


Not nearly enough, I would imagine, to produce the kind of effects you envision.

 

You might have to start off with higher temperatures and assume the Crust has already cooled so there is no shrinkage of the outer surface but say a 5% shortening of the inner parts. Then you have to look at that in a volume change and how the rigid crust would wrap around that again OK the Ocean floors may have been relatively small compared to Earth. It was the principle I was suggesting not the degree.

 

Ignore facts; make crap up.

 

You are new here, but you catch on real fast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He's my mate from another forum, not a bad guy actually.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By "mate" I hope you don't mean "friend."

Robbitybobbity's trail of ignorance reaches far and wide: physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842&st=540&#entry499197

 

I didn't say friend. But you are not an enemy either, for I do believe you are helping me gently. I wish you well in your endeavours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!