Lithopanspermia and you
Pat Flannery
rather your possible Martian ancestors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1989431,00.html
Pat
snidely
Rusty wrote:
> You would think it would be the reverse and earth
> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
I thought "inward" was the kinetically favored direction for debris;
I'll have to review my accretion disks, though, because there has to be
transfer of momentum before anybody heads inwards or outwards.
/dps
Henry Spencer
snidely <Snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You would think it would be the reverse and earth
>> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
>
No, in the absence of dissipative forces (we're not talking about the days
of accretion disks, here -- the planets have formed and more or less
cleared out the neighborhood at this point), there is no particular bias
in or out. The *big* difference is that it's much easier to get rocks off
Mars intact, due to lower gravity and thinner atmosphere.
>I'll have to review my accretion disks, though, because there has to be
>transfer of momentum before anybody heads inwards or outwards.
Repeated close encounters with Mars will suffice for that.
If memory serves, the estimate is that half a ton or so of Mars rocks fall
on Earth *every year*. It would probably have been higher then, given
probably-higher impact rates on Mars.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Brad Guth
news:1169000261.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
> lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
> forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
Lithopanspermia seems doable. After all, Earth's life was almost
entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed by way
of ET-4H clubs to suit.
Life going from Earth outward is a bit of a stretch, though possible
since we seem to get a few spores from Venus each and very 19 month
cycle.
When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?
Why are there intelligent human records from the end of and while during
and even a few before the last ice age that simply fail to mention or
otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW moon of ours?
Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth having that seasonal
tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not more recent?
Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?
Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
news:12qq1jm...@corp.supernews.com
I have no problems with multi teratonne litho transfers of minerals,
salty ice and life as we know it, even if having been intentionally
taken advantage of.
"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."
Just to honestly think; If much larger life as we know it were
surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick
and passengers within could easily have survived the transfer.
"Rusty" <reuben...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169000261.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
> lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
> forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
Lithopanspermia seems doable. After all, Earth's life was almost
entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed by way
of ET-4H clubs to suit.
Life going from Earth outward is a bit of a stretch, though possible
since we seem to get a few spores from Venus each and very 19 month
cycle.
Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I thought it
was the other way around)
When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?
Why are there intelligent human records from the end of and while during
and even a few before the last ice age that simply fail to mention or
otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon of
ours?
Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not more recent?
Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?
snidely
Henry Spencer wrote:
[...]
>The *big* difference is that it's much easier to get rocks off
> Mars intact, due to lower gravity and thinner atmosphere.
Ahh.
[...]
> If memory serves, the estimate is that half a ton or so of Mars rocks fall
> on Earth *every year*. It would probably have been higher then, given
> probably-higher impact rates on Mars.
Any estimates of the travel rates in the other direction? Would it
take a dinosaur-killer to eject enough debris to be detectable?
/dps
Henry Spencer
>
>Any estimates of the travel rates in the other direction? Would it
>take a dinosaur-killer to eject enough debris to be detectable?
Even bigger, if (dim) memory serves -- between needing about five times as
much energy per kilogram of rock, and needing an object big enough that it
blows a "tunnel" through the atmosphere (temporarily!) for the rocks to
escape through, it has to be really large. It's thought that nothing big
enough has hit Earth since the early days of the solar system.