Count,
Just as there is nothing in Isaac Newton's little book on gravity
that needs correcting despite its four-century age, the chemistry
and physics of atmospheres hasn't changed in the half century
since this other Isaac outlined the basics. The basics remain
the basics.
It's worth noting that at the time this was written very little
was known about the actual atmospheres of the planets (besides
the Earth). We had just learned that Jupiter had a lot of hydrogen,
but the others were all a mystery.
On purely theoretical grounds, Asimov suggests Mars' atmosphere
would turn out to be very rich in CO2 (unless there was plant life),
and indeed it's almost all CO2. But he wasn't writing about known
planetary atmosphere, he was writing about theoretical atmospheres,
their likelihood based on elemental abundances, and the possible
life energy cycles that could take place in them.
Those theoretical considerations haven't changed a bit. They're
not going to, since they are from basic chemistry and the known
cosmic abundances of the elements. Since there's 10,000 times
more oxygen in the universe than there is chlorine, this makes
the hydrogen-chlorine energy cycle of life much less likely to
occur in the universe than the hydrogen-oxygen cycle we critters
use.
Count, I thought you lived in a place where they understood
what "the odds" mean...
Read the article. There's nothing out-of-date nor inaccurate in it.
Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Count Deiro" <[email protected]>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <[email protected]>; "Richard
Montgomery" <[email protected]>; "Michael Mulgrew"
<[email protected]>; "Mark Ford" <[email protected]>;
"Meteorite List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff
Jeez! Sterling,
I would hope that those who have read the suggested assignment in your
post would read something a bit more current than my hero Isaac's half
a century old treatise. They might as well read Genesis.
Best personal regards,
Count Deiro
IMCA 3536
-----Original Message-----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 13, 2013 9:46 PM
To: Richard Montgomery <[email protected]>, Michael Mulgrew
<[email protected]>, Mark Ford <[email protected]>,
Meteorite List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff
Guys, List,
What life needs is a source of energy that can be
stored and utilized when needed. Without these
energy exchanges there is no life. That's why you
have to eat breakfast.
This energetic system requires elements that are
cosmically abundant, on planets large and cool
enough to retain a gaseous reservoir of a reactive
element (called an atmosphere) and a fluid reservoir
of a working solvent to facilitate and participate in
those reactions (called an ocean).
There are many possible systems of energy
exchange, but their LIKELIHOOD depends on
the cosmic abundance of the elements involved
and the likelihood of their entering into
combinations with other common elements.
If you grab a fistful of solar nebula you have
hydrogen, helium, and as impurities, oxygen and
nitrogen, BUT the oxygen and nitrogen combine
easily with hydrogen, so you end up with an
atmosphere of hydrogen, helium, with ammonia
and methane as impurities.
We represent a CHON life system, but fluorine is
more energetic than oxygen and yields more bang
for the buck. So, why don't we have a CHFN life
system? The reason is that fluorine grabs on so
tight it can't be split off again with the energies
available at a planetary surface. Ammonia is a
better solvent than water but its liquid range of
fluid temperatures is so narrow that it would make
a lousy ocean.
The reactive elements for life are all right there on the
periodic chart in a stack: fluorine, oxygen, chlorine,
bromine, iodine. At first blush, life could be based on
any of them, but some are more unlikely than others.
Since I don't want to write twenty pages of chemistry,
I suggest you go the link given below;
http://www.bestebooksworld.com/showeBook.asp?link=24235
and download the PDF of this little 1957 book, "Only
A Trillion." Read Chapter Six, "Planets Have An Air About
Them," by Isaac Asimov who, being both a chemist by
trade and a better writer than I, can explain the whole
range of possible life systems and how they might work
in a marvelous fashion.
Sterling K. Webb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Montgomery" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Mulgrew" <[email protected]>; "Mark Ford"
<[email protected]>; "Meteorite List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:16 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff
Michael M and List,
First, apologies to be so Sci-Fi...not the intention. If I had a
better rocker I'd probably be knocked off of it for remotely, even
slightltly suggesting this, especially to this credentialed List;
best
a slap upside-the-head to get me back to reality...
Meanwhile, here goes....it falls into the X-curiousity factor of all
equations: how can we rule out everything that hasn't already been
ruled in? To wit: given what we know about
Life-to-develop-needs-100%-water, what don't we know? Is our
silly-human insignificance bound only by what we currently know and
entertain as possibilities?
This is NOT an endoresment for rice-paddy science; nor a support for
the previous thread. I've just always wondered why we assume that
all
elemental progressions are known.
Big stew out there! I really would like to hear from you
heavy-weights...it'll rest better when I read.
Sincerely, and good thing I'm not a B-movie producer,
Richard Montgomery
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Mulgrew" <[email protected]>
To: "Mark Ford" <[email protected]>; "Meteorite
List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Ancient
FossilsinFireballFragments
Considering our current understanding of what it takes for life to
develop, i.e. water is 100% absolutely necessary, I would say the
recent evidence of Mars' wet past increases the chances of
extraterrestrial life discovery by much, much more than "a tiny
tiny
amount".
Michael in so. Cal.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Mark Ford
<[email protected]> wrote:
Sure and I don't deny finding water or evidence of it is very
exciting, but what I question, is 'the building blocks of life
claim'. This is pure hype. Sure water and amino acids are
essential
for life, but I would question exactly how certain life is to
evolve
when water alone is present. The answer is it's massively more
complex than just having flowing water. So finding water does not
immediately mean there is any life. From some of the recent press
and Nasa coverage, you would get the impression that finding water
on Mars automatically means the hunt for extraterrestrial life is
nearly over, but the truth is very far from it! It just makes it a
tiny tiny amount more likely..
Mark
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
