Count, You said:
...Asimov was making a wild ass guess as to the 10,000 to one Oxygen/Chlorine ratio and he never presented one paper to support his hypothesis.
Asimov wasn't presenting a scientific paper. He was writing a popular article in a popular magazine. There are no referencew in magazine pieces. Again, he wasn't making hypotheses; he was presenting the well-known science of the time. The cosmic abundances were being determined for forty years before this article was writteen. Here's a current table of the values: http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_1/3_1_3.html and a bit clearer example at: http://old.orionsarm.com/science/Abundance_of_Elements.html Counting atoms for cosmic abundances is tricky. People have tried by counting atoms in Earth's sea water, in the crustal rocks of the Earth, by analyzing meteorite abundances, by spectroscopic analysis of the Sun and of other stars. The table in the first reference gives figures for all of these sources; water, rocks, meteorites, Sun, stars... (I don't know which one Asimov was using.) It works because our star and rocks (planets) are all made out of the same stuff and similar stars are made from almost identical stuff. The ratios may have been refined since 1957, but they haven't changed that much. And Isaac only mentions one "noble" gas: neon. As for Mars, I have another argument. Mars had a warm wet past. Any simple life there probably started then. So, life has had 3-4 billion years to get its act together. IF there is life on Mars, don't you think it would evolve a little bit in all that time? Do something that would get our attention? Leave visible evidence of its presence? Life expands, spreads, complicates. If there were life on Mars, wouldn't it have done SOMETHING in three billion years? I don't believe in patient little microbes that do nothing for billions of years. It says to me that there's nobody home... 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 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff
Stirling,I'm on board with you through the first three paragraphs of your last, but I have to jump ship right from the first sentence of your fourth, cause you is sailing into ever shallowing water.Thereoretical considerations have changed and are changing as we speak about Asimov. We hadn't scratched or sniffed on any other solar system body in his day, and now the present science argues against the ratios of noble gasses he theorized.Further shallowing the water, is the fact that we haven't been able to sniff the whole of the volumne of the universe as yet and we have recently discovered that there is enough evidence of galactic sized concentrations of interstellar gas and other elements floating around that we can't even postulate the percentages of anything.. So you see, Asimov was making a wild ass guess as to the 10,000 to one Oxygen/Chlorine ratio and he never presented one paper to support his hypothesis.As I swim away from this sinking ship, I yell over my shoulder that I never meant to imply that it's evidence of homonids that I expect to show up on Mars, or any other body in the solar system, but I'm "giving odds" that the Sport Utility Vehicle we just drove up there will quite quickly show us that the red planet did have the right ratios to once support "life" in the scientific sense...and perhaps still does.Best personal regards, Guido -----Original Message-----From: "Sterling K. Webb" <[email protected]> Sent: Mar 14, 2013 12:40 AMTo: Count Deiro <[email protected]>, Richard Montgomery <[email protected]>, Michael Mulgrew <[email protected]>, Mark Ford <[email protected]>, Meteorite List <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff 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 StuffJeez! 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 halfa 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 StuffMichael 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 allequations: 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 oursilly-human insignificance bound only by what we currently know andentertain as possibilities?This is NOT an endoresment for rice-paddy science; nor a support forthe 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 FossilsinFireballFragmentsConsidering our current understanding of what it takes for life todevelop, 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 morecomplex 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 atiny 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
